iEx  Htbrtfl 


SEYMOUR  DURST 


When  you  leave,  please  leave  this  book 

Because  it  has  been  said 
"Ever  thing  comes  t'  him  who  waits 

Except  a  loaned  book." 


c&i  we  & 


Avery  Architectural  and  Fine  Arts  Library 
Gift  of  Seymour  B.  Durst  Old  York  Library 


I 


Jj 

- 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2013 


http://archive.org/details/flaggsflatsOOflag 


FLAGG  S  FLATS 


BY 

JARED  FLAGG 


Third  Edition 


Copyright,  1909,  by  Jahed  Fiagg 


CT 
275 

A3 


TO  THE  READER 


ANYTHING  worth  reading  at  all  is  worth  read- 
ing carefully.  If  you  read  this  book  you 
should  read  it  carefully.  You  should  not  lose 
the  gist  by  skimming  over  certain  seemingly 
unimportant  parts. 

The  book  explains  why  my  real  friends 
stand  by  me  and  have  stood  by  me  even  in  my 
darkest  hours.  In  writing  the  book  no  attempt 
has  been  made  to  palliate  my  own  faults  and 
make  my  side  appear  better,  or  the  other  side 
worse,  than  the  facts  justify. 

It  is  a  simple  narrative  relating  to  certain 
events  (many  of  them  illegal,  a  few  legal,  in 
their  nature) ,  given  in  the  order  in  which  they 
occurred,  without  embellishments — a  copy  of 
the  Court  files — not  so  much  what  I  say,  but 
what  the  Records  say.  In  other  words,  all  that 
I  say,  whether  appertaining  to  social,  business, 
police  or  Court  matters,  can  be  verified. 

The  facts,  prior  to  this  publication,  have 
appeared  only  in  the  Court  Records.  Few 
read  the  Records,  few  therefore  are  familiar 
with  the  facts  in  my  case. 

Tared  Flagg. 

P.S. 

There  is  no  such  thing  as  criminal  slander. 
One  person  can  say  anything  about  another 
person  and  the  other  person's  only  legal  re- 


in 


dress  is  by  civil  procedure.  But  let  him  put 
it  down  in  black  and  white,  let  him  write  it, 
and  it  then,  if  false,  becomes  criminal  libel. 
This  means  jail.  The  difference  between  talk- 
ing and  writing — slander  and  libel — is  jail. 

Over  a  year  ago  I  wrote,  I  printed,  I  pub- 
lished the  first  edition  of  this  book.  Over  a 
year  ago  I  sent  marked  copies  of  the  book  to 
all  those,  including  the  newspaper  editors  and 
the  public  officials,  herein  denounced.  I  ac- 
cused them  respectively  of  being  liars  and 
scoundrels  and  thieves  and  blackmailers  and 
perjurers  and  forgers,  and  then  folded  my 
arms,  so  to  speak,  and  waited  to  see  what  they 
were  going  to  do  about  it.  They  didn't  do 
anything.  They  didn't  even  let  out  a  peep; 
nor  have  I,  from  that  day  to  this,  heard  one 
word  from  any  one  of  them.  I  have,  however, 
heard  many  expressions  of  righteous  indigna- 
tion from  others,  and  have  received  many 
commendatory  letters  from  friends  and  from 
utter  strangers  residing  in  different  parts  of 
the  country.  I  have  also  received  orders  from 
most,  if  not  all,  of  the  largest  public  libraries 
in  the  United  States,  and  these  orders  have 
been  executed.  Furthermore,  all  the  greatest 
educational  institutions  in  America  have 
written  to  me.  Copies  of  some  of  the  letters 
received  from  these  great  seats  of  learning 
follow: 


m 


Yale  University  Library. 


New  Haven,  Conn. 

Mr.  Jared  Flagg. 

Dear  Sir:  I  take  the  liberty  of  asking  whether  a  copy  of  your 
"Flagg's  Flats"  could  be  deposited  in  this  Library  for  the  use  of 
future  students  and  investigators  in  genealogy  and  history. 

Assuring  you  that  the  book  could  be  put  to  no  better  use,  I 
remain, 

Yours  respectfully, 

J.  C.  Schwab, 

Librarian. 


Harvard  College  Library. 

Cambridge,  Mass. 

Jared  Flagg,  Esq. 

Dear  Sir:  My  attention  has  been  called  to  the  publication 
named  below  and  to  the  desirability  of  placing  it  in  this  Library 
for  the  use  of  professors  and  students  of  the  University. 

The  work  not  being  readily  procurable  through  the  book- 
trade,  I  venture  to  ask  that  the  Library  may  be  favored  by  the 
gift  of  a  copy.  Your  kindness  in  this  matter  will  be  highly 
appreciated. 

William  C.  Lane, 
Librarian. 

"Flagg's  Flats/'  by  Jared  Flagg. 


Columbia  University,  in  the  City  of  New  York, 
Library. 

Mr.  Jared  Flagg. 

My  Dear  Sir:  My  attention  has  been  called  to  your  book  en- 
titled "Flagg's  Flats,"  and  if  you  will  present  a  copy  to  this 
Library  we  will  be  very  glad  to  receive  one  for  preservation 
among  our  collections. 

Very  truly  yours, 

W.  D.  Johnston, 
Librarian. 

v 


Library  of  Princeton  University. 


Princeton,  N.  J. 

Jared  Flagc,  Esq. 

Dear  Sir:  I  am  advised  that  a  book  called  "Flagc's  Flats" 
is  to  be  desired  for  this  library,  and,  being  privately  printed,  is 
to  be  had  only  from  you. 

It  would  be  much  appreciated  if  you  should  see  fit  to  promote 
the  usefulness  of  this  library  by  giving  or  selling  us  a  copy. 

Believe  me, 

Yours  very  truly, 

E.  C.  Richardson. 


Vassar  College  Library. 

poughkeepsie,  n.  y. 

Mr.  Jared  Flagg. 

Dear  Sir:  We  very  much  desire  to  have  in  this  library  a 
book  entitled  "Flagg's  Flats,"  of  which  you  are  the  author,  but 
we  have  learned  that  it  is  not  for  sale.  If  we  may  not  buy  a 
copy,  may  we  beg  one?  There  is  much  interest  here  in  the 
subject  with  which  it  deals. 

Very  truly  yours, 

A.  Underhill, 
Ref.  Librarian. 


The  Johns  Hopkins  University. 

Baltimore,  Md. 

Mr.  Jared  Flagg. 

Dear  Sir:  The  library  of  the  Johns  Hopkins  University  would 
be  pleased  to  receive  a  copy  of  "Flagg's  Flats."  Upon  its 
receipt  a  suitable  acknowledgement  will  be  sent. 

Very  truly  yours, 

Dr.  M.  L.  Raney, 

Librarian. 


vi 


Cornell  University  Library. 

Ithaca,  N.  Y. 

Mr.  Jared  Flagg. 

Dear  Sir:  The  Cornell  University  Library  has  a  considerable 
number  of  books  on  municipal  government  of  cities  and  kindred 
topics,  and  would  be  much  pleased  to  add  your  work,  "Flagg's 
Flats/' 

If  you  are  willing  to  send  one  to  our  library  it  will  be  re- 
garded as  a  great  favor. 

Yours  respectfully, 

Andrew  C.  White, 
Asst.  Librarian. 

University  of  Pennsylvania, 
The  Library. 

Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Mr.  Jared  Flagg. 

Dear  Sir:  I  have  heard  that  recently  you  have  had  printed  a 
book  entitled  "Flagg's  Flats,"  which  is  of  great  interest  and 
importance  in  connection  with  the  Municipal  Government  of 
New  York  City,  showing  the  misrule,  etc.,  which  has  been  car- 
ried on  there.  May  I  ask  you  if  it  is  possible  to  send  a  copy  of 
this  book  to  the  University  of  Pennsylvania  Library?  We 
would  be  very  grateful  to  you  if  you  can  comply  with  this 
request. 

Very  truly  yours, 

Katherine  S.  Lieper, 
Assistant  Librarian. 

The  University  of  Chicago. 

Founded  by  John  D.  Rockefeller. 
Office  of  the  Librarian. 

Chicago,  III. 

Mr.  Jared  Flagg. 

Dear  Sir:  We  have  heard  of  a  recent  book  published  by  you, 
and  entitled  "Flagg's  Flats."  If  it  be  not  asking  too  much  we 
should  be  very  glad  to  get  two  copies,  one  for  our  General 
Library,  and  one  for  our  Dept.  of  Political  Economy.  If  you 
can  oblige  us  in  this  way,  kindly  send  them  by  express,  collect. 

Truly  yours, 

Zella  Allen  Dixson, 

Librarian. 


vii 


New  York  University  School  of  Law. 


Washington  Square,  East,  New  York  City. 
Jared  Flagg,  Esq. 

Dear  Sir:  May  I  request  a  copy  of  "Flagc's  Flats"  for  our 
Law  Library,  32  Waverly  Place,  New  York  City?  We  shall 
appreciate  it,  I  assure  you. 

Very  truly, 

Leslie  J.  Tompkins, 

Secretary. 

Syracuse  University. 

Syracuse,  N.  Y. 

Mr.  Jared  Flagg. 

New  York  City. 
Dear  Sir: 

Would  it  be  possible  for  our  library  to  obtain  a  copy  of  your 
book,  "Flagg's  Flats"? 

Yours  very  truly, 

M.  J.  Sibley, 
Acting  Librarian. 


The  Wellesley  College, 

My  Dear  Mr.  Flagg:  The  Wellesley  College  Library  desires 
a  copy  of  your  book,  "Flagg's  Flats."   .   .  . 

Very  truly  yours, 

H.  St.  B.  Brooks, 
Acting  Librarian. 

The  College  of  the  City  of  New  York. 

Mr.  Jared  Flagg. 

Dear  Sir:  If  you  will  send  us  a  copy  of  your  work,  "Flagg's 
Flats,"  we  will  gladly  defray  cost  and  make  the  book  accessible 
to  readers  in  our  library. 

Yours  truly, 

Henry  E.  Bliss, 
Deputy  Librarian. 

viii 


University  of  Michigan. 


Ann  Arbor,  Mich. 

Mr.  Jared  Flagg. 
Dear  Sir: 

We  have  five  copies  of  your  book,  "Flagg's  Flats."  If  you 
can  spare  another  copy  it  would  be  much  appreciated  by  the 
following:  Miss  Mary  Pratt,  Librarian,  Mitchell  Public  Library, 
Hillsdale,  Mich.    Please  send  C.  O.  D.,  direct  to  Hillsdale. 

Thanking  you  for  your  kind  response  to  our  former  request, 
I  am 

Very  gratefully  yours, 

Theo.  W.  Koch, 
Librarian. 


University  of  Southern  California, 
College  of  Liberal  Arts. 

Los  Angeles,  Cal. 
My  Dear  Mr.  Flagg:    We  would  like  very  much  to  have  a 
copy  of  your  book,  "Flagg's  Flats/'  in  our  library.  What  would 
be  the  cost? 

Very  truly  yours, 

C.  N.  Brown, 
Librarian. 


De  Pauw  University. 

Greencastle,  Indiana. 

Mr.  Jared  Flagg. 
Dear  Sir: 

Will  you  kindly  send  a  copy  of  your  book,  "Flagg's  Flats" 
to  our  library?  It  would  be  appreciated  here.  We  have  a  de- 
bate in  preparation  on  the  subject  of  city  government,  and  would 
find  it  especially  useful. 

Very  truly  yours, 

L.  M.  Powell, 
Librarian. 

ix 


CHARACTERS 

WHO  APPEAR  IN  THIS  VOLUME 

Theodore  Roosevelt,  President  qf  the  United  States. 
Geo.  B.  McClellan,  Mayor  of  the  City  of  New  York. 
Recorder  Goff,  of  New  York  City. 
Judge  Hough,  of  the  United  States  Court. 

Judge  Newberger,  of  the  General  Sessions  Court  of  New  York. 

Judge  V.  J.  Dowling,  of  the  Supreme  Court. 

John  R.  Fellows,  late  District  Attorney  of  the  City  of  New  York. 

Bartow  S.  Weeks,  Ex-Assistant  District  Attorney. 

Wm.  Travers  Jerome,  District  Attorney  of  the  City  and  County 

of  New  York. 
Wm.  Marshall,  Assistant  District  Attorney. 
C.  W.  Appleton,  Assistant  District  Attorney. 
Ex- Assistant  District  Attorney  Lindsay. 
Ex- Assistant  District  Attorney  Lewis. 

Chas.  A.  O'Neil,  Assistant  Corporation  Counsel  of  the  City  of 
New  York. 

Ed.  R.  Carroll,  Chief  Clerk  of  the  Court  of  General  Sessions. 
Wm.  Hanna,  First  Assistant  Clerk  of  the  Court  of  General 
Sessions. 

John  N.  Bogart,  License  Commissioner  of  the  City  of  New  York. 
J.  J.  Cadwell,  License  Commissioner's  Secretary. 
Geo.  W.  Hamilton,  Deputy  License  Inspector. 
H.  N.  Steinert,  License  Commissioner's  Attorney. 
F.  L.  C.  Keating,  Ex-License  Commissioner  of  the  City  of 
New  York. 

Geo.  W.  Benham,  Warden,  Auburn  State's  Prison. 
Ex-Police  Commissioner  Parker,  of  the  City  of  New  York. 
Ex-Police  Commissioner  Theodore  A.  Bingham. 
Moses  W.  Cortright,  Chief  of  the  Police  of  New  York  City. 
Inspector  Schmittberger,  of  the  police  force  of  New  York  City. 
Acting  Police  Captain  Lynch,  of  the  West  Twentieth  Street 
Station  House. 

Police  Captain  Martins,  of  the  East  Thirtieth  Street  Station 
House. 


xi 


Police  Captain  Pickett,  of  the  Tenderloin  Station. 
Ex-Police  Captain  James  K.  Price. 
Ex-Police  Captain  Geo  Chapman. 
Ex-Police  Captain  J.  J.  Donohue. 

Detective  Sergeant  B.  McConville,  of  Police  Headquarters. 

Central  Office  Detective  Mason. 

Police  Detective  Zimmerman. 

Police  Detective  Rohrig. 

Police  Detective  H.  W.  Schill. 

Police  Detective  Cohn. 

Francis  H.  Leggett,  Wholesale  Grocer  and  foreman  of  the 
Grand  Jury  that  indicted  Donohue  and  Price.  . 

Rev.  C.  H.  Parkhurst,  D.D.,  President  of  the  Society  for  the 
Prevention  of  Crime. 

H.  M.  MacCracken,  Vice-President  of  the  Society  for  the  Pre- 
vention of  Crime. 

Wm.  H.  Arnoux,  Second  Vice-President  of  the  Society  for  the 
Prevention  of  Crime. 

Thaddeus  D.  Kenneson,  Secretary  of  the  Society  for  the  Preven- 
tion of  Crime. 

Ed.  A.  Newell,  Treasurer  of  the  Society  for  the  Prevention  of 
Crime. 

Frank  Moss,  Counsel  of  the  Society  for  the  Prevention  of  Crime. 
Arthur  F.  Dennett,  late  Superintendent  of  the  Society  for  the 

Prevention  of  Crime. 
Gilbert  Totten  Reeder,  Landlord. 
Charles  W.  Brooke,  Counsel  for  Jared  Flagg. 
H.  D.  Mildeberger,  Counsel  for  Jared  Flagg. 
Caruth  &  Caruth,  Counsel  for  Jared  Flagg. 
Irwin  E.  Ziegler,  Counsel  for  Jared  Flagg. 
Frank  Work,  multi-millionaire. 
E.  C.  Sewall,  Treasurer  Pond's  Extract  Company. 
Chas.  Dana  Gibson,  Illustrator. 
Howard  Chanler  Christie,  Illustrator. 
Edison  M.  Knox,  Illustrator. 
Sarony,  Photographer. 
L.  S.  White,  Photographer. 
Tonele,  Photographer. 
Eddowes  Bros.,  Photographers. 
Richard  S.  Davenport,  Janitor. 

Oscar  Hammerstein,  Operatic  and  Theatrical  Manager. 
Heinrich  Conreid,  Operatic  and  Theatrical  Manager. 
David  Belasco,  Operatic  and  Theatrical  Manager. 
Chas.  Frohman,  Operatic  and  Theatrical  Manager. 
Daniel  Frohman,  Operatic  and  Theatrical  Manager. 
H.  B.  Savage,  Operatic  and  Theatrical  Manager. 
Klaw  &  Erlanger,  Operatic  and  Theatrical  Managers. 

xii 


SHUBERT  Bros.,  Operatic  and  Theatrical  Managers. 

Thompson  &  Dundy,  Operatic  and  Theatrical  Managers. 

Keith  &  Proctor,  Operatic  and  Theatrical  Managers. 

Bradhurst  &  Currie,  Operatic  and  Theatrical  Managers. 

Fisher  &  Rylie,  Operatic  and  Theatrical  Managers. 

Hurtig  &  Seamon,  Operatic  and  Theatrical  Managers. 

Wm.  Brady,  Operatic  and  Theatrical  Manager. 

Geo.  Lederer,  Operatic  and  Theatrical  Manager. 

Sam  Harris,  Operatic  and  Theatrical  Manager. 

F.  L.  Pearley,  Operatic  and  Theatrical  Manager. 

F.  Ziegfeld,  Operatic  and  Theatrical  Manager. 

Geo.  Ade,  Operatic  and  Theatrical  Manager. 

Whitney,  Operatic  and  Theatrical  Manager. 

Liebler,  Operatic  and  Theatrical  Manager. 

Aborn,  Operatic  and  Theatrical  Manager. 

W.  Ashland,  Manager  the  Witmark's  Agency  Department. 

Webster  Cullison,  Theatrical  Agent. 

Philip  Watkins,  Theatrical  Agent. 

F.  C.  Palmer,  Theatrical  Agent. 

W.  J.  Plimmer,  Theatrical  Agent. 

J.  J.  Armstrong,  Theatrical  Agent. 

Frank  Melville,  Theatrical  Agent. 

Arthur  W.  Tams,  Theatrical  Agent. 

Matt  Graw,  Theatrical  Agent. 

Frank  Forrester,  Theatrical  Agent. 

Austin  Davis,  Theatrical  Agent. 

Wm.  Morris,  Theatrical  Agent. 

Robert  Graw,  Theatrical  Agent. 

Henry  Wolfsohn,  Theatrical  Agent. 

B.  Packard,  Theatrical  Agent. 

Mrs.  Austin  Davis. 

Miss  Mabelle  Texas. 

Miss  Grace  Proctor. 

Miss  Beatrice  Phelps. 

James  Irby,  Mr.  Flagg's  rent  collector. 

Wm.  Young,  Mr.  Flagg's  rent  collector. 

Ilma  Salter,  the  first  young  woman  ever  placed  on  the  stage  by 

Mr.  Flagg. 
Mrs.  Salter,  llma*s  mother. 
Ed.  L.  Schiller,  Stock  Broker. 
Wm.  B.  Reed,  Jr.,  Stock  Broker. 
Henry  A.  Jackson,  Stock  Broker. 
J.  Baumann,  Furniture  Dealer. 
Mr.  Fisher,  Furniture  Dealer. 
Ludwig  Baumann,  Furniture  Dealer. 
Sam  Manges,  Furniture  Dealer. 
Moses  Manges,  Furniture  Dealer. 


xiii 


Daniel  Farrell,  Furniture  Dealer. 
Henry  Mannes,  Furniture  Dealer. 
Henry  Thousen,  Furniture  Dealer. 
John  Dowd,  Watchman. 
Father  Ducey. 
Rev.  J.  A.  B.  Wilson. 

Charlotte  Smith,  President  of  the  fake  Woman's  Rescue  League. 
Lawrence  G.  Goodhart,  Attorney  for  the  fake  W Oman's  Rescue 
League. 

Helen  Arthur,  Attorney  for  the  Woman's  Municipal  League. 

Miss  Burt,  friend  of  Charlotte  Smith. 

Bertha  Claiche,  the  "white  slave  girl." 

Geo.  W.  Miner,  Commissioner  of  Deeds. 

Louise  Fink,  honest  working  girl. 

Maggie  Smith,  honest  working  girl. 

Anna  Chapman,  honest  working  girl. 

Addie    Smith,    honest   working  girl. 

Josephine  Merritt,  honest  working  girl. 

Lizzie  Gregory,  honest  working  girl. 

City  Marshal  James  M.  Gano. 

Mayor  Wm.  J.  Gaynor. 

Geo.  D.  Smith  and 

Jared  Flagg. 


JARED  FLAGG 

A  SNAPSHOT 
1910 


FLAGG'S  FLATS 


CHAPTER  I 

It  is  dangerous  for  a  person  to  have  an  idea. 
There  is  no  telling  where  a  man  with  an  idea 
may  land.  I  once  had  an  idea  and  it  landed 
me  in  the  Tombs. 

It  occurred  to  me  that  the  majority  of  the 
people  were  honest,  and  if  the  installment  fur- 
niture dealers  were  willing  to  trust  their  cus- 
tomers with  ninety  per  cent  of  the  face  value 
of  the  goods  purchased,  it  would  be  safe  to 
trust  them  with  the  entire  one  hundred  per 
cent.  In  other  words,  if  it  were  policy  to  sell 
and  deliver  one  hundred  dollars'  worth  of  fur- 
niture on  a  payment  down  of  ten  dollars  and 
take  chances  on  collecting  the  remaining 
ninety  in  weekly  payments,  it  would  be  feas- 
ible to  sell  one  hundred  dollars'  worth,  or 
more,  without  demanding  the  customary  ten 


i 


per  cent  deposit  prior  to  the  delivery  of  the 
goods.  The  first  large  advance  payment 
should  be  eliminated  and  the  entire  bill  liqui- 
dated by  small  weekly  payments. 

This  was  my  idea  and  I  imparted  it  to  Mr. 
Jacob  Baumann,  of  J.  &  S.  Baumann,  furni- 
ture dealers. 

At  first  Mr.  Baumann  did  not  seem  to  take 
kindly  to  it.  "It  had  never  been  tried — would 
be  risky,"  etc.  But  when  a  person  has  nothing 
to  risk  and  everything  to  gain  he  can  talk 
impressively,  and  I  impressed  upon  him  the 
profits  he  could  make.  I  explained  how  the 
system  in  vogue  tended  to  work  a  hardship, 
especially  on  young  engaged  couples;  "it  was 
deterring  many  from  marrying;  it  was  not  so 
much  the  inflated  installment  price,  as  it  was 
the  large  advance  payment  exacted  at  a  time 
when  it  was  most  difficult  for  the  purchaser 
to  spare  the  money  because  of  the  multiplicity 
of  expenditures  incidental  to  starting  house- 
keeping." Therefore  I  maintained  that  the 
installment  dealer  who  had  the  foresight  to 
appreciate  the  value  of  my  idea,  and  the  cour- 
age to  adopt  it,  would  reap  a  reward. 

"If  you  are  so  sanguine  it  can  be  worked 
without  loss,"  said  Mr.  Baumann,  "you  ad- 


vance  to  us  the  first  ten  per  cent  and  we  will 
then  fill  orders  for  any  one  you  may  introduce, 
provided  we  are  satisfied  with  his  references; 
and  after  we  have  collected  an  amount  equal 
to  the  amount  advanced  by  you,  we  will  re- 
fund it  to  you;  but  if  any  of  your  customers 
skip  with  the  goods,  or  return  them  before  we 
have  collected  the  first  ten  per  cent  of  the  bill, 
you  will  forfeit  the  ten  per  cent  which  you 
advanced  to  us ;  agree  to  this  and  we  will  agree 
to  pay  you  a  commission  of  ten  per  cent  on  all 
moneys  collected  from  your  customers." 

A  contract  to  this  effect  was  signed,  and  al- 
though I  may  have  felt  a  trifle  ticklish  in 
assuming  a  risk  I  had  urged  another  to  assume 
on  the  ground  that  it  was  no  risk,  nevertheless 
I  lost  no  time  in  beginning  operations.  An 
advertisement  appeared  in  the  daily  papers; 
and  those  desiring  to  furnish  homes  on  the 
installment  plan,  without  making  a  payment 
down,  were  invited  to  call  at  my  office. 

A  young  gentleman  called,  one  about  to  be 
married.  He  knew  of  a  flat  that  suited  them. 
The  landlord  would  give  the  balance  of  the 
first  month's  rent  free,  but  demanded  the  sec- 
ond month's  rent,  cash  in  advance  before  giv- 
ing possession;  the  gas  trust  required  a  cash 


deposit  before  turning  on  the  gas;  the  minister 
expected  his  fee  to  be  paid  spot  cash,  and 
would  prefer  it  in  gold;  every  one  wanted 
cash  down  except  Mr.  Flagg;  and  this  was 
why  he  had  called.  He  estimated  that  the 
flat  could  be  furnished  for  one  hundred  and 
fifty  dollars,  but  Mr.  Flagg,  "an  experienced 
furniture  man,  would  know  best."  Mr.  Flagg 
knew  nothing.  It  depended  on  the  young 
woman,  his  intended;  if  she  had  ideas,  that  is, 
if  she  possessed  good  or  bad  taste,  there  was 
no  computing  in  advance  what  it  might  cost. 
"Anything  that  suits  me  will  suit  Elphye,"  he 
said;  but  the  next  day,  at  the  store,  it  proved 
to  be  the  reverse,  and  everything  that  suited 
Elphye  suited  him.  Consequently  with  El- 
phye's  notions  of  what  might  "look  cute,"  and 
the  extras,  and  installment  prices,  which  in- 
cluded my  commission,  the  bill  amounted  to 
three  hundred  and  fifty  dollars,  about  twice 
the  amount  calculated.  Still,  as  the  weekly 
payments  were  to  be  moderate,  a  chattel  mort- 
gage was  signed;  and  his  references  were 
looked  up;  and  as  they  proved  to  be  satisfac- 
tory I  was  called  upon,  as  per  agreement,  to 
deposit  with  the  firm  ten  per  cent  of  the  bill — 
thirty-five  dollars. 


4 


Now  it  so  happened,  at  this  particular  time, 
although  I  may  have  looked  like  "ready  cash" 
I  was  pinched  financially,  my  available  cap- 
ital being  only  a  trifle  over  three  hundred  dol- 
lars, but  I  was  willing  to  stake  it  on  my  idea, 
and  did,  and  what  was  more,  I  won  out. 

My  advertisements  drew;  the  "no  cash 
down"  proposition  touched  the  public  in  a 
tender  spot;  the  people  came  and  at  the  close 
of  the  first  week  my  sales  had  reached  the 
three  thousand  dollar  mark,  therefore  my 
profits  for  the  first  six  days  were  ten  per  cent 
of  the  three  thousand  dollars — three  hundred 
dollars. 

My  idea  had  surprised  me.  A  profit  of 
three  hundred  dollars  in  one  week?  It  seemed 
incredible.  The  only  trouble  was  it  was  paper 
profit.  I  could  see  no  cash,  not  even  a  small 
balance;  my  available  capital  was  gone;  it 
was  "up"  as  security  "in  the  firm's"  bank,  and 
owing  to  the  long-winded  nature  of  the  busi- 
ness, was  likely  to  remain  there  for  some  time 
to  come. 

If  a  business  man  cannot  pay  with  checks, 
he  should  pay  with  notes.  No  man  is  too  poor 
to  draw  a  note,  therefore  bright  and  early  the 
next  week  I  started  for  the  store,  armed  with 


5 


a  pocket  full  of  blank  notes  and  several  cus- 
tomers in  tow,  one  of  whom,  a  boarding  house 
keeper,  wished  to  furnish  a  fourteen- 
room  house.  My  sales  that  day — not  week — 
amounted  to  four  thousand  dollars;  this  was 
making  money,  but  this  was  my  idea.  That 
day  I  lunched  with  the  members  of  the  firm ; 
they  insisted  I  should  drink  the  best  wines,  and 
smoke  the  best  cigars;  they  conveyed  to  my 
mind  that  the  best  was  none  too  good  for  me, 
and  invited  me  to  make  myself  comfortable 
in  their  innermost  private  office  while  the 
"poor  devils" — the  fifteen  and  twenty-dollar- 
per-week  clerks,  who  never  knew  what  it  was 
to  have  an  idea — waited  on  my  customers. 

At  the  close  of  the  day  Mr.  Fisher,  the 
cashier,  called  my  attention  to  the  fact  that  a 
note  was  not  a  check.  Instead  of  four  hun- 
dred dollars,  which  would  have  represented 
the  first  payment  (ten  per  cent)  to  which  the 
firm  was  entitled  on  the  goods  purchased  by 
my  customers  that  day,  I  had  tendered  a 
ninety-day  note.  "This  was  not  in  accordance 
with  the  agreement,"  Mr.  Fisher  said;  "I  am 
not  authorized  to  accept  it,  the  firm  will  have 
to  be  consulted."  Whereupon  I  did  the  con- 
sulting, and  the  firm  did  the  authorizing,  and 

6 


the  cashier  accepted  the  note.  The  next  day, 
without  being  authorized,  he  accepted  an- 
other, and  kept  accepting  them.  And  when  I 
intimated  to  the  firm  that  I  lacked  the  where- 
withal to  pay  for  my  furniture  advertisements, 
I  was  told  to  draw  a  note  and  present  it  to  the 
cashier,  Mr.  Fisher;  and  when  I  saw  the  cash 
and  counted  it,  and  stowed  it  away  in  my  in- 
side pocket,  it  commenced  to  dawn  on  me  that 
perhaps,  after  all,  my  notes  might  be  better 
than  I  thought  they  were. 

In  due  course  of  time  the  three  hundred 
dollars  original  capital  came  back,  and  then 
by  degrees  as  new  notes  were  "floated,"  old 
ones  were  redeemed,  until  at  last  the  real,  not 
the  paper,  profits  commenced  to  flow  in  my 
direction.  It  had  taken  time,  but  when  they 
once  commenced  to  come,  they  came.  Faster 
and  faster  and  larger  and  larger  as  the  months 
rolled  by — one  year,  two  years,  three  years, 
and  still  they  came.  It  was  not  only  the  Bau- 
mann  firm  now,  but  five  other  firms  as  well, 
Manges  Brothers,  Henry  Thousen  &  Com- 
pany, D.  O'Farrell  &  Company,  H.  Mannes 
&  Sons,  and  Moses  Manges  &  Company,  that 
were  contributing  to  my  bank  account.  One 
of  these  other  firms — Henry  Thousen  &  Com- 


7 


pany — became  financially  involved,  and  in 
lieu  of  a  cash  settlement  I  was  constrained  to 
accept  my  commissions  in  furniture.  Not 
wishing  to  slaughter  this  furniture,  by  having 
it  sold  at  auction,  or  have  it  "eat  itself  up"  by 
placing  it  in  storage,  I  leased  and  furnished 
a  flat  with  a  view  of  renting  it  at  a  profit. 

This  was  the  beginning — this  accident;  I 
did  not  realize  it  at  the  time,  but  it  was  the 
beginning,  just  the  same,  of  the  so-called 
"Flagg's  Flats."  Had  I  only  known  then 
what  I  know  now,  that  little  five-room  flat, 
with  its  porcelain  bath-tub  and  stationary  ice- 
box, would  never  have  been  furnished  by  me 
— not  in  a  hundred  years-  And  yet  there  is 
nothing  wrong  in  furnishing  a  flat  with  the 
view  of  subletting  it  at  a  profit. 

Every  human  being  has  the  right  of  habita- 
tion, just  as  every  human  being  has  the  right 
to  eat,  but  no  person  has  the  legal  right  to 
use  or  rent  to  another  an  abode  to  be  used  for 
immoral  purposes.  Knowing  this  I  was  par- 
ticular in  procuring  a  tenant;  after  which  I 
gave  no  thought  to  the  matter,  simply  made 
an  arrangement  with  the  janitor  to  collect  the 
rent  from  my  sub-tenant  and  remit  proceeds. 

Another  year  passed  and  still  the  people 


8 


thronged  to  my  office  to  purchase  furniture 
without  payment  down.  My  fifty-cent  ad- 
vertisements did  the  work;  my  business 
prospered;  there  was  not  a  cloud  on  the 
horizon;  even  the  little  imitators,  who  had 
from  time  to  time  cropped  up,  with  the  in- 
tention of  conducting  business  on  the  lines 
adopted  by  me,  had  now  dropped  out  and 
were  no  longer  in  evidence.  It  certainly 
seemed  as  if  at  last  I  was  going  to  have  money; 
at  last  was  going  to  experience  joy,  the  same 
joy  that  the  rich  seem  to  take  in  making  their 
dearest  friends  and  poorest  relatives  green 
with  envy.  But  this  seeming  happiness — the 
one  ambition  of  so  many — was  not  in  store 
for  me. 

The  unexpected  happened. 

It  so  happened  that  the  firm,  the  original 
Baumann  firm,  the  members  of  which  had 
backed  me,  loaned  me  money,  carried  me  over 
the  rough  places,  permitted  me  to  secure  them 
with  their  own  funds  by  accepting  my 
unendorsed  paper  as  security  in  lieu  of  cash, 
were  at  this  time  transacting  a  stupendous 
business.  My  trade,  although  not  to  be  de- 
spised, was  a  bagatelle  compared  to  their  own ; 
but  their  largest  competitor — Ludwig  Bau- 
mann— was  not  aware  of  this  fact,  and  at- 


9 


tributed  the  activity  of  J.  &  S.  Baumann  to 
"that  man  Flagg."  "He  is  doing  it.  He  is 
the  one.  If  we  allow  this  thing  to  con- 
tinue, in  time  he  will  gobble  up  all  the 
trade  in  town.  We  do  not  approve  of  the  no 
cash  down  plan;  it's  an  idiotic  idea;  suicidal; 
no  person  ever  heard  of  selling  furniture  on 
such  a  crazy  basis  until  we  heard  of  Flagg. 
Flagg  has  ruined  the  business,  now  we  will 
ruin  him ;  we  will  give  him  a  dose  of  his  own 
medicine."  This  is  what  they  said;  and,  they 
certainly  made  it  interesting  for  me. 

Ingenuity,  integrity,  sobriety,  efficiency, 
originality,  energy  and  ability  often  count 
as  nothing  compared  to  capital.  This  rival 
firm  possessed  capital,  and  with  it  could  crush 
and  drive  me  from  the  field  as  easily  as  I  had 
crushed  others — little  impecunious  competi- 
tors who  had  essayed  to  interfere  with  my 
business. 

The  first  gun,  or  rather  broadside,  was  fired 
February  25,  1890;  and  from  that  day  till  this, 
in  their  particular  line  of  endeavor  I  cannot 
say  I  have  been  a  factor.  Metaphorically  speak- 
ing, I  was  blown  so  high  that  the  installment 
furniture  men  of  New  York  City  have  as  yet 
been  unable  to  recover  even  a  fragment,  and 
have  probably  long  ere  this  become  reconciled 


10 


to  the  fact  that  I  am  lost  to  them  forever.  On 
that  memorable  day,  this  rival  firm,  Ludwig 
Baumann  &  Company,  bought  a  full  page  in 
all  the  leading  city  and  nearby  country  news- 
papers, and  in  flaring  type  announced  to  the 
world  that  they  would  henceforth  sell  furni- 
ture on  the  longest  credit  and  WITHOUT  A  PAY- 
MENT DOWN. 

The  other  firm,  my  friends,  J.  &  S.  Bau- 
mann, did  not  wish  to  join  in  the  fight  and 
thereby  aid  in  putting  me  out  of  business,  but 
asked  if  I  could  afford  to  expend  in  adver- 
tising five  hundred  dollars  a  day.  Self-pres- 
ervation is  the  first  law  of  nature,  and  in  jus- 
tice to  themselves  they  would  have  to  strike 
back.  There  was  to  be  war;  thousands  were 
to  be  squandered  in  advertising  those  three 
little  words,  "No  money  down." 

A  fifty-cent  "advertisement"  is  no  match 
for  a  five-hundred-dollar  "advertisement." 
And  so  it  came  to  pass  at  the  expiration  of  four 
years  I,  who  had  revolutionized  (at  least  for 
the  time  being)  the  installment  business  of  the 
city,  suddenly  found  myself  forced  out,  swal- 
lowed up,  as  it  were,  just  as  big  fish  swallow 
little  fish. 

Unfortunately,  however,  I  was  not  a  bank- 


ii 


rupt.  Had  I  at  this  crucial  moment  been 
stranded  high  and  dry  without  a  dollar,  how 
different  it  all  might  have  been;  how  different 
my  life;  how  brilliant  a  future  I  might  have 
had!  My  reputation  at  that  time  was  intact; 
my  relatives  had  not  been  humiliated,  and  I 
had  not  been  forever  "damned"  by  prison  bars. 
But  fate  was  against  me;  thousands  were  still 
to  be  placed  to  my  credit.  Those  three  potent 
words,  which  meant  so  much  to  the  poor,  had 
paid  a  profit.  How  was  I  to  invest  this  profit? 
Every  installment  firm  with  which  I  had  been 
associated  was  in  my  debt.  The  money  came 
to  them  from  my  customers  in  driblets.  At 
stated  intervals  settlements  were  made  and  I 
received,  according  to  agreement,  commissions 
to  date  on  moneys  collected.  The  firms  would 
seize  no  furniture,  would  foreclose  no  mort- 
gages, if  the  buyers  showed  a  disposition  to 
make  any  kind  of  payments,  however  small; 
therefore  bills  which  should  be  liquidated  in 
one  or  two  years  might  drag  on  four  or  five 
years,  and  it  was  going  to  be  a  long  wait. 

Things  that  heretofore  had  been  luxuries 
to  me  had  now  become  necessities,  and  if  I 
waited  for  my  commissions  to  come  in  they 
might  go  as  fast  as  they  came.   On  the  other 


12 


hand,  if  in  lieu  of  cash  commissions  I  would 
agree  to  accept  furniture,  every  firm  with 
which  I  had  been  associated  would  settle  with 
me  on  the  spot.  And  by  utilizing  this  furni- 
ture in  flats  I  could  derive  an  immediate  and 
large  revenue. 

We  usually  do  that  which  we  deem  to  be 
best  under  existing  conditions,  and  in  the  light 
of  the  excellent  showing  made  by  the  original 
five-room  flat — the  accident — it  seemed  best 
for  me  to  place  myself  in  a  position  where  I 
could  have  a  permanent  income,  derived  from 
my  principal,  rather  than  to  live  on  my  prin- 
cipal. This  original  flat,  after  making  an 
allowance  for  wear  and  tear  and  vacancies, 
had  paid  an  average  profit  of  four  dollars  per 
week,  during  a  period  of  fifty-two  weeks.  In 
renting  it  I  happened  to  find  tenants  in  all 
respects  desirable,  and  it  was  owing  to  this 
misfortune  that  my  calculations  miscarried. 
Had  I  leased  it  to  a  tenant  capable  of  paying 
the  first  month's  rent  and  "sticking"  me  for  the 
next  two,  and  if,  after  being  put  to  the  trouble 
of  dispossessing  him,  I  had  had  the  good  for- 
tune to  find  another,  capable  of  creating  such 
a  disturbance  that  the  owner  of  the  property 
would  have  felt  it  incumbent  upon  himself  to 


13 


have  dispossessed  me,  I  might  then  have  been 
able  to  form  a  more  conservative  estimate  of 
the  ultimate  net  profits  of  the  business;  but 
as  it  was  I  allowed  myself  to  be  duped  by 
myself  and  based  my  figures  on  the  actual  cash 
showing  that  this  original  flat  had  made.  I 
said  to  myself,  "If  one  furnished  flat  will  yield 
a  profit  of  four  dollars  a  week,  one  hundred 
will  yield  one  hundred  times  as  much — 
four  hundred  dollars  per  week.  "And  it 
was  not  many  weeks  before  I  had  one  hundred 
Hats  furnished  and  in  operation.  The  furni- 
ture firms  then  owed  me  nothing,  and  if  I  had 
stopped  right  there,  I  might  have  made  a  suc- 
cess of  the  flat  business,  but  like  many  others 
I  did  not  become  conservative  until  it  was  too 
late.  I  did  not  appreciate  the  fact  that  my 
business  was  running  smoothly,  well  in  hand, 
and  every  detail  carefully  looked  after;  nor 
did  I  stop  to  consider  my  experience  in  the 
business  was  as  yet  limited,  and  there  might 
be  pitfalls  unknown  to  me;  I  thought  I  knew 
it  all  and  so  staked  all,  jeopardized  a  small 
certainty  for  a  large  uncertainty. 

Ambition  ruins  more  men  than  it  makes.  I 
was  ambitious  and  wanted  an  income  of  one 
hundred  thousand  dollars  a  year.   If  one  hun- 


14 


dred  flats  could  be  made  to  pay  a  profit  of  four 
hundred  dollars  a  week,  five  hundred  could 
be  made  to  pay  five  times  as  much,  and  five 
times  four  hundred  are  two  thousand.  Two 
thousand  dollars  in  one  week  would  amount 
in  round  numbers,  to  one  hundred  thousand 
dollars  in  one  year.  These  were  my  figures 
and  they  looked  pretty  on  paper;  figures  usu- 
ally look  better  on  paper  than  in  real  life. 
However,  figures  or  no  figures,  correct  or  in- 
correct, the  fact  remained  that  the  furniture 
firms  which  I  had  trusted  were  willing  to 
trust  me,  and  I  could  think  of  no  reason  why 
I  should  not  permit  them  to  do  so.  With 
money,  money  is  made.  Why  not  use  a  little 
of  their  money?  Why  not  within  five  years 
have  five  hundred  flats  all  paying  a  profit? 
These  were  the  questions  I  put  to  myself,  and 
this  is  what  I  attempted  to  accomplish.  It 
was  an  undertaking,  but  I  felt  it  could  be  car- 
ried through,  and  even  when  I  encountered 
innumerable  and  seemingly  insurmountable 
obstacles  I  paid  no  attention  to  them,  and 
pressed  straight  ahead;  and  at  the  end  of  five 
years  from  the  day  I  embarked  in  the  flat  busi- 
ness, I  had,  by  actual  count,  four  hundred  and 
eighty-eight   flats,    daintily   furnished  and 

is 


equipped  to  the  most  minute  detail;  pictures, 
linen,  silver,  china,  cooking  utensils  and  all. 

To  facilitate  business  I  ran  an  upholster- 
ing shop,  a  carpet  cleaning  establishment,  a 
crockery  and  tin-pan  store,  and  a  laundry  in 
which  three  thousand  of  my  sheets  were 
washed  each  week.  I  employed  bookkeepers, 
collectors,  janitors,  night  watchmen,  scrub 
women,  painters,  paper  hangers  and  plumbers, 
by  the  year.  Also  a  bed-bug  gang — the  only 
one  of  its  kind,  probably,  ever  organized  in 
the  United  States. 

About  this  time  my  business  commenced  to 
attract  attention.  Everyone,  it  seemed,  had 
heard  of  the  "Flagg  Flats."  And  visitors  to 
New  York,  from  all  parts  of  the  world,  occu- 
pied and  kept  house  in  them  rather  than 
pay  hotel  rates.  As  a  result  money  flowed 
into  my  office  like  water,  but  it  also  flowed 
out.  Real  estate  agents  and  owners  of  flat 
property  entreated  me  to  buy.  They  told  me 
to  name  my  terms  and  I  named  them.  And 
in  the  "Hall  of  Records"  of  the  City  and 
County  of  New  York,  the  books  show  that  on 
May  i,  1894,  I  held  title  (in  addition  to  my 
leased  flats)  to  over  six  hundred  thousand  dol- 
lars' worth  of  flat  property,  which  I  was  pay- 

16 


ing  for  in  monthly  installments.  All  my 
buildings  were  located  between  Fifteenth  and 
Fifty-eighth  streets  and  Eighth  and  Lexing- 
ton avenues,  and  during  recent  years  have 
advanced  enormously  in  value.  I  would  have 
held  them  all,  and  ultimately  have  owned 
them  free  and  clear,  had  not  the  police  mani- 
tested  a  disposition  to  go  into  business  with  me. 
To  this  I  OBJECTED.  I  told  Captain  J.  J. 
Donohue,  of  the  West  Twentieth  street  police 
station,  and  Captain  James  K.  Price,  of  the 
West  Thirty-seventh  street    police  station, 

and  Captain    Martins,  of  the  West 

Thirtieth  street  police  station,  that  if  I  were 
a  person  who  would  engage  in  a  disreputable 
business,  I  could  see  some  object  in  tak- 
ing them  into  partnership  with  me,  but  as  I 
was  not  one  of  that  kind,  and  was  conducting  a 
lawful  business,  renting  flats  to  respectable 
people,  I  could  see  no  object  in  sharing  profits 
with  them. 

In  confirmation  of  this  assertion  I  here 
quote  from  the  Court  Records  of  my  trial 
(which  will  be  described  in  the  following 
chapters)  :  "Captain  Donohue  wanted  from 
me  one  hundred  a  month  and  I  told  him  I 
would  not  give  it  to  him  (this  was  before  I 

17 


was  indicted),  and  McConville  came  to  me 
(after  I  was  indicted),  and  told  me  that  I 
was  a  fool  and  standing  in  my  own  light;  that 
if  I  would  arrange  with  the  Captain  substan- 
tially I  could  be  protected,  and  I  said,  'I'll 
give  you  nothing;  I  am  engaged  in  a  lawful 
business,  and  I  will  give  you  or  your  Captain 
nothing.'  " 

This  statement  was  made  by  me  in  an  open 
Court  of  Law,  when  upon  the  witness  stand 
and  testifying  under  oath;  and  the  statement 
stood  uncontradicted  to  the  very  end  of  my 
trial,  as  I  shall  show  hereafter  by  extracts 
from  the  Court  Records. 

I  was  firm  because  I  believe  my  position 
impregnable.  From  the  start  I  had  been  ani- 
mated by  a  desire  to  succeed;  I  had  not  been 
conducting  business  for  the  purpose  of  de- 
stroying myself;  and,  aside  from  all  right  or 
wrong,  I  knew  that  one  disreputable  tenant 
might  drive  ten  reputable  ones  out;  so  could 
not,  on  this  account,  if  for  no  other  reason, 
afford  to  have  such  in  my  buildings. 

Every  superintendent  and  janitor  I  had, 
subsequently,  at  my  trial,  testified  under  oath 
that  I  had  given  orders  to  dispossess,  at  any 
cost,  and  as  quickly  as  the  law  would  allow, 

iS 


any  questionable  characters  who  might  from 
time  to  time  gain  admittance.  My  jury  heard 
this  and  other  evidence  bearing  on  the  subject, 
and  was  convinced  that  it  was  not  my  intention 
to  rent  to  disreputable  persons,  and  so  ac- 
quitted me  of  the  charge  that  I  knowingly 
rented  flats  to  be  used  for  immoral  purposes. 

It  is  not  the  act,  it  is  the  intention.  Was  it 
my  intention  to  bring  notoriety  on  my  relatives 
and  myself?  This  is  the  question;  and  those 
who  were  affected,  those  who  were  incensed, 
should  have  answered  this  question  before 
passing  censure.  They  should  have  taken  into 
consideration  my  intentions,  should  have 
weighed  the  circumstances;  and  my  object  in 
having  explained  at  length  all  the  circum- 
stances, all  the  occurrences  leading  up  to,  and 
which  influenced  me  to  embark  in  the  fur- 
nished flat  business,  is  to  refute  the  claim  ad- 
vanced by  so  many  that  I  intentionally  engaged 
in  the  business  for  the  sole  purpose  of  renting 
flats  to  be  used  for  immoral  purposes. 

Even  in  recent  years,  years  after  having 
been  acquitted  (by  a  duly  impanelled  jury  of 
my  peers)  of  this  offense,  certain  newspapers, 
despite  the  verdict  of  this  jury,  despite  the 

19 


Court  Records,  have  published  that  1  was 
adjudged  guilty  of  the  infamous  charge.  And 
many  persons  who  read  newspapers,  but  do 
not  read  Court  Records  believe  me  a  vicious 
character.  The  police,  however,  not  only  the 
blackmailing,  but  also  the  honest  members  of 
the  force,  know  the  truth.  Ex-Police  Com- 
missioner Parker,  Chief  of  Police  Moses  W. 
Cortright,  Inspector  Schmittberger,  Ex- Police 
Captain  Chapman,  Central  Office  Detective 
Mason,  and  other  honest  members,  have  said 
(in  words  chosen  from  their  own  vocabulary) 
that  it  was  "handed  out  to  me"  when  I  did  not 
deserve  it.  And  even  the  dishonest  members  of 
the  force  have  more  than  once  been  heard  to 
say  that  they  would  not  have  gone  so  far  had  I 
not  shown  so  much  fight.  They  wanted  to  be 
friendly  and  said  so;  they  did  not  want  law; 
they  were  not  looking  for  trouble;  they  were 
looking  for  money,  and  imagined  I  would 
scare  at  the  sight  of  gold  shields  and  brass  but- 
tons, and  disgorge  as  others  had  disgorged. 
Such  a  thing  as  subjecting  me,  or  of  placing 
themselves,  in  a  position  to  stand  trial,  did  not 
at  the  outset  enter  their  heads ;  but,  later,  when 
it  dawned  on  them  that  they  had  encountered 
a  man  who  would  abide  by  his  decision  re- 


gardless  of  any  consequences  that  might  come 
by  so  doing,  they  assumed  a  different  attitude ; 
and  it  was  then — not  at  the  beginning — that  I 
was  given  to  understand,  in  language  more 
potent  than  polished,  that  I  could  take  the 
consequences. 
I  took  them. 

Two  days  after  I  was  told  that  I  could  take 
the  consequences;  two  days  after  the  final 
warning;  after  their  final  blackmailing  de- 
mand, Police  Captain  J.  J.  Donohue,  and  his 
emissary,  Officer  Barnard  McConville,  on  ex 
parte  evidence — which  is  no  evidence  at  all — 
secured  an  indictment  against  me. 

I  quote  the  words  of  my  lawyer — the  late 
Chas.  W.  Brooke — when  addressing  the 
Court:  ["That  was  the  23d  day  of  May,  and 
on  the  25th  day  of  May  these  two  people  alone, 
for  they  did  not  take  a  neighbor — the  law  re- 
quires that  the  indictment  shall  contain  the 
endorsement  of  the  names  of  all  the  witnesses 
examined  before  the  Grand  Jury — they  did 
not  invoke  the  aid  of  anybody,  but  Donohue 
and  McConville  alone,  two  days  after  the 
refusal  of  Flagg  to  submit  to  their  demands, 
went  before  the  Grand  Jury  and  on  ex  parte 
evidence  procured  this  indictment."] 


21 


What  is  a  Grand  Jury?  What  is  an  indict- 
ment? What  is  ex  parte  evidence?  Webster's 
Dictionary  defines  a  Grand  Jury  as  a  jury  to 
decide  whether  the  person  accused  is  to  be  put 
on  trial.  If  the  members  of  a  Grand  Jury 
decide  that  an  accused  person  shall  be  put  to 
trial  they  issue  a  legal  document  called  an 
indictment  against  the  accused  person.  If  be- 
fore issuing  this  indictment  they  wish  to  hear 
both  sides  of  the  story  they  have  the  privilege 
of  sending  for  the  accused  person  and  hearing 
what  he  has  to  say  on  the  subject.  But  they 
did  not  send  for  me;  they  did  not  hear  what  I 
had  to  say  on  the  subject;  they  simply  indicted 
me  on  what  is  called  ex  parte  evidence. 

The  definition  of  ex  parte,  according  to 
Webster's  Dictionary,  is  "one  part";  that 
which  is  brought  forward  as  evidence  by  one 
side  only.  And  it  was  on  such  evidence  that 
I  was  indicted. 

Captain  Donohue  did  the  swearing,  and  his 
"right-hand  man,"  McConville,  did  the  cor- 
roborating. This  swearing  occurred  two  days 
after  I  had  been  warned  that  I  could  abide 
the  consequences.  Two  days  after  that  warn- 
ing Donohue,  who  at  the  time  had  never  been 
in  one  of  my  flats,  and  was  not  acquainted  with 


22 


a  single  one  of  my  tenants,  testified  under  oath, 
before  all  the  members  of  the  Grand  Jury, 
that  of  his  own  personal  knowledge  he  knew 
my  tenants  were  immoral  and  knew  I  knew  it. 

What  do  you  think  of  that  for  ex  parte  evi- 
dence? And  his  confidential  man,  Officer 
McConville,  who  at  the  time  did  not  even 
know  me,  and  subsequently  swore  under  oath 
that  he  did  not  know  me,  and,  to  the  best  of 
his  knowledge  and  belief,  had  never  seen  me 
prior  to  May  31,  1894,  nevertheless,  on  May 
25,  1894 — six  days  before  he  had,  accord- 
ing to  his  sworn  testimony,  first  seen  me — 
went  before  the  Grand  Jury  and,  to  make 
himself  solid  with  his  superior  officer, 
Donohue,  placed  his  hand  on  the  Bible  and 
swore  he  did  know  me.  In  other  words, 
he  first  swears  he  knows  a  certain  person  he 
does  not  know;  subsequently  he  swears  he  does 
not  know  a  certain  person  he  does  know;  and 
each  time  the  Grand  Jury  called  this  cor- 
roborative evidence. 

I  quote  from  the  Court  stenographer's 
minutes:  ["On  the  25th  day  of  May,  1894, 
McConville  went  before  the  Grand  Jury  and 
swore  to  this  indictment  against  Flagg.  Mc- 
Conville then  comes  before  this  jury  and 


23 


swears  he  never  saw  Flagg  in  his  life  until  the 
31st  day  of  May,  1894.  He  swears  that  he 
was  one  of  the  witnesses  before  the  Grand 
Jury  upon  whose  testimony  this  indictment  on 
the  25th  day  of  May  was  found;  and  he 
swears  before  you  thereafter  in  his  direct  ex- 
amination, and  swears  to  it  again  three  times  in 
his  cross-examination,  that  he  never  saw  Flagg 
in  his  life  until  the  31st  day  of  May,  1894."] 

When  it  comes  to  perjury  there  may  be 
those  in  the  "department"  who  can  equal 
"Barney"  McConville,  the  ex-truck-driver, 
but  they  cannot  beat  him. 

The  records  of  the  Grand  Jury  room  also 
show  this  is  what  happened;  the  indictment  is 
still  there;  and  if  ever  there  was  a  travesty  on 
justice  this  is  it. 

But  what  does  a  newspaper  reporter  or 
"space-writer"  care  for  justice?  All  indict- 
ments look  alike  to  them.  So  long  as  it  was 
an  indictment  it  was  news.  News  to  a  "space- 
writer"  means  money,  and  in  head-line  letters 
it  was  announced  to  the  public  that  "FLAGG 
IS  INDICTED."  How,  and  by  what  means ; 
whether  by  ex  parte  evidence,  whether  by  per- 
jured testimony  or  honest  testimony,  they  did 
not  state,  and  did  not  care. 


24 


The  law  says  that  every  person  charged 
with  a  crime  or  an  offense  is  entitled  to  appear 
before  a  committing  magistrate  and  to  con- 
front his  accusers.  But  was  I  accorded  any 
such  right?  I  was  not.  These  blackmailers 
knew  their  business  too  well;  they  knew  it 
would  not  be  conducive  to  their  interests  to  let 
me  tell  my  side  of  the  story;  that  might  upset 
their  plans  altogether;  so  they  cut  off  my 
chance  to  be  heard,  and  had  me  indicted  with- 
out a  hearing. 

I  quote  from  my  lawyer's  opening  address : 
— [uThe  constitutional  right  of  every  defend- 
ant— of  every  man  charged  with  crime — is 
that  he  shall  meet  his  accusers  face  to  face; 
that  he  shall  have  the  right  to  cross-examine 
and  examine  the  witnesses  against  him.  But 
on  the  25th  day  of  May,  1894,  in  secret,  with- 
out notice  to  this  defendant,  without  giving 
him  an  opportunity  to  defend  himself,  two 
police  officers  get  access  to  the  Grand  Jury. 
You  have  preliminary  magistrates.  The  law 
says  that  every  man  who  is  arrested  is  entitled 
to  an  examination.  This  is  his  constitutional 
right  under  the  statute,  and  of  this  right,  this 
defendant,  Jared  Flagg,  WAS  ROBBED.*"] 

But  the  newspapers  made  no  mention  of  this 


25 


little  act  of  thievery.  They  simply  informed 
the  public  that  a  true  bill  had  been  found 
against  me;  and  this  was  sufficient.  This  was 
enough  to  make  my  social  acquaintances,  my 
business  acquaintances,  my  "fair-weather 
friends''  and  many  of  my  relatives  look  upon 
me  askance.  Had  they  known  the  truth  they 
might  have  looked  at  the  matter  in  a  different 
light;  but  barring  Donohue  and  McConville 
no  one  knew  the  truth.  No  one  at  that  time 
knew  the  indictment  was  putrid  to  the  core 
except  these  two — Donohue  and  McConville 
— but  they  knew  and  have  always  known  that 
if  ever  they  attempted  to  press  it  for  trial, 
they  would  both  be  jailed  as  perjurers.  And 
they  have  taken  mighty  good  care  not  to  let 
it  be  brought  to  trial.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  it 
never  was,  and  never  will  be  tried ;  it  was  only 
a  trick  to  blight  my  reputation  and  place  me 
at  their  mercy. 

I  quote  from  my  lawyer's  opening  address: 
— ["Now  they  say,  now  Mr.  Flagg  is  indicted ; 
now,  we  have  not  given  him  a  chance  even  for 
an  examination.  We  have  cut  off  his  right  to 
prove  his  innocence  before  the  preliminary 
magistrate.  We  could  not  meet  this  gentle- 
man and  make  this  charge  in  open  court, 

26 


where  he  could  have  the  opportunity  to 
cross-examine  us,  but  in  this  surreptitious  man- 
ner we  have  secured  the  indictment.  He  has 
asserted  that  he  is  not  guilty,  and  that  puts  us 
in  the  attitude  of  responsibility  to  meet  him 
upon  the  trial  of  that  issue.  So,  although  he 
pleaded  not  guilty  on  June  i,  1894,  the  indict- 
ment thus  found,  from  that  day  to  this,  almost 
two  years,  despite  the  repeated  demands  of 
this  defendant,  this  accused,  to  be  brought  to 
trial,  was  never  tried.  That  is  the  Record 
upon  its  face."] 

It  is  difficult  for  any  person,  not  a  member 
of  Tammany  Hall,  to  comprehend  the  deprav- 
ity which  exists  in  the  police  department  of 
the  City  of  New  York.  We  clothe  our  offi- 
cers with  great  power,  and  the  corrupt 
ones  abuse  that  power.  We  enact  idiotic  laws 
relating  to  adult  prostitution  which  are  of  no 
value  to  us,  but  invaluable  to  them  for  black- 
mailing purposes.  Under  these  circumstances 
is  it  surprising  that  these  uniformed  thieves, 
who  had  been  baffled  in  their  first  attempt  to 
rob  me,  should  become  solicitous  as  to  the 
chastity  of  my  tenants? 

With  this  indictment  for  a  club  they  now 


27 


had  me  in  their  clutches  and  could  demon- 
strate to  me  the  terror  of  my  position,  which 
they  straightway  did  by  having  me  arrested, 
not  as  they  ordinarily  would  have  arrested  one 
charged  with  misdemeanor  (as  I  was)  but  as 
a  felon,  or  some  treacherous  desperado. 

I  quote  from  my  lawyer's  opening  address: 
— ["And  what  did  they  now  do?  What  in- 
strument of  torture  did  they  invoke?  A  prison 
cell.  They  want  to  reduce  him  to  the  ig- 
nominy of  a  jail.  They  think  that  will  tame 
his  pride.  Their  little  police  malignity  sug- 
gests that  to  put  Mr.  Flagg  in  jail  will  be  the 
way  to  teach  him  the  horrors  of  his  position ; 
so  in  order  to  do  that,  Mr.  Flagg,  who  gets  his 
first  notice  of  these  things  as  they  come  on, 
finds  that  the  bail  upon  these  misdemeanors  is 
fixed  at  seven  thousand  five  hundred  dollars 
each."] 

And  yet  I  was  accused  only  of  a  misde- 
meanor. Does  the  reader  know  what  a  mis- 
demeanor is?  If  any  person  opens  a  letter 
and  throws  the  envelope  on  the  sidewalk  he 
commits  a  misdemeanor.  If  he  smokes  a 
cigar  in  a  public  conveyance  he  commits  a  mis- 
demeanor.  If  he  has  a  dispute  and  uses  loud 


28 


language  he  commits  a  misdemeanor.  Or  if 
he  happens  to  be  a  landlord,  and  has  a  tenant 
who  is  in  the  habit  of  singing  too  loudly,  after 
ten  p.  m.  (although  he  may  know  nothing  of 
it  at  the  time),  he,  as  landlord,  can  be  charged 
with  a  misdemeanor,  for  "maintaining  a  nui- 
sance," and  convicted ;  the  extreme  penalty  for 
which  is  a  fine  of  five  hundred  dollars  or  im- 
prisonment for  one  year  in  the  county  jail, 
or  both,  in  the  discretion  of  the  Court.  This 
is  what  I  was  charged  with  and  convicted  of. 
The  endorsement  on  the  indictment  upon 
which  I  was  tried  reads,  "Guilty  on  second 
count  for  maintaining  a  nuisance";  and  this 
is  the  only  thing  I  ever  was  convicted  of,  ex- 
actly this  and  nothing  more,  as  the  Records 
prove. 

And  yet  Officers  Rohrig  and  McConville 
suddenly  appeared  in  my  private  office,  then 
located  at  No.  242  West  Twenty-third  street, 
and  the  first  thing  that  I  knew  I  was  hand- 
cuffed to  them  and  being  marched  through 
the  streets,  followed  by  a  small  army  of  peo- 
ple. 

Did  they  shackle  me  with  irons  because  they 
were  fearful  I  might  run  away,  or  was  it  to 


29 


add  to  my  abasement  in  furtherance  of  their 
threat  that  "I  could  take  the  consequences"  for 
refusing  to  pay  tribute  to  them? 

No  person  who  has  not  been  subjected  to 
such  an  ordeal  can  realize  what  it  means  to  be 
dragged  through  the  public  streets  hand- 
cuffed to  officers  of  the  law.  One  may  read, 
guess,  imagine,  but  he  cannot  understand  all 
such  a  person  suffers.  The  ignominy,  odium 
and  scandal  of  it  all  is  enough  to  fill  any  self- 
respecting  person  with  abhorrence.  I  re- 
spected myself,  but  was  more  determined  than 
ever  not  to  submit  to  their  blackmailing  de- 
mands. So,  in  a  few  days  they  had  me  in- 
dicted again,  and  again  threw  me  into  a  cell; 
and  again  indicted  me,  and  again  and  again. 
Five  indictments — five  counts  in  each — twen- 
ty-five "cooked  up"  complaints  in  all,  with 
bail  bonds  running  high  into  the  thousands. 

I  quote  the  words  of  my  lawyer  when  ad- 
dressing the  court: — ["Captain  Donohue  bor- 
rowed officers  to  help  his  officers,  from  the  in- 
spection district,  to  be  put  under  his  direction ; 
and  he  succeeded,  on  the  21st  day  of  June,  in 
getting  another  indictment  against  Flagg. 
What  did  they  do  with  this  indictment?  Did 


30 


they  ever  move  it  for  trial,  or  did  they  ever 
bring  Mr.  Flagg  up  to  try  him?  Oh,  no!  that 
was  not  to  be  their  method  of  procedure.  But 
on  the  1 8th  day  of  September,  following,  they 
got  another  indictment.  The  same  witnesses 
and  the  same  offense.  Now  they  have  three  in- 
dictments ;  one  in  May,  one  in  June,  and  one  in 
September.  All  secured  by  the  same  witnesses, 
and  on  the  same  bogus  charges.  Two  days 
after  the  indictment  of  September  1 8th  they 
caused  two  more  indictments  to  be  procured. 

"This  was  the  20th  of  September,  1895. 

"When  were  these  alleged  various  offenses 
committed?  There  is  the  21st  of  June  indict- 
ment. Do  you  suppose  they  sent  these  wit- 
nesses before  the  Grand  Jury  for  an  offense 
committed  on  that  day  or  at  that  time,  the  21st 
of  June?  What  did  they  accuse  Flagg  of  at 
this  time?  Not  with  renting  premises  to  be 
used  for  immoral  purposes,  but  they  charged 
him,  on  the  21st  of  June,  with  having  done 
that  on  the  17th  day  of  April.  That  was  the 
June  indictment.  They  waited  until  June  to 
charge  him  with  having  done  that  on  the  17th 
day  of  April. 

"Now  let  us  see  the  18th  of  September  in- 
dictment.  On  this  day  they  charged  him  with 


31 


having  done  the  same  thing  on  the  23d  day  of 
August.  Now  let  us  see  the  two  indictments 
on  the  20th  day  of  September.  Why  is  the  one 
not  the  other? 

"On  the  21st  of  June  they  charged  him  with 
doing  this  act  on  the  17th  day  of  April.  Now, 
on  the  20th  day  of  September,  they  go  before 
the  Grand  Jury  and  charge  him  with  this  act 
on  the  15th  day  of  April.  That  is,  in  Septem- 
ber, they  have  him  indicted  for  this  act  which 
they  now  charge  he  committed  two  days  be- 
fore the  date  alleged  in  the  indictment  of  the 
21st  of  June. 

"In  the  indictment  which  you  are  trying  he 
is  not  charged  with  the  commission  of  the  act 
at  the  time  that  the  indictment  was  found ;  but 
they  charge  him  with  doing  the  act  alleged  on 
the  22nd  day  of  May. 

"Mr.  Flagg  would  neither  be  frightened, 
cajoled,  nor  driven  to  compromise,  and  there- 
fore in  order  to  reconcile  the  records  against 
Flagg  on  the  top  of  the  June  indictment  they 
hastened  up  the  other  three,  and  so  hurriedly 
did  they  proceed  that  they  found  two  of  them 
upon  one  day."] 

Then  it  was  that  the  evening  newspapers 


32 


issued  their  EXTRAS  and  that  the  people  "said 
things." 

.  .  .  "He  must  be  innately  wicked,  a 
dangerous  character.  And  only  to  think" — to 
repeat  the  words  of  Katharina — our  old  Ger- 
man nurse,  who  has  lived  in  the  family  forty- 
eight  years — "he  was  such  a  nice  boy,  so  de- 
vout. My!  My!  had  I  not  seen  it  with  my 
own  eyes,  in  the  newspapers,  I  would  not  have 
believed  it" ;  etc.,  etc- 

And  my  every  day  acquaintances,  some  of 
whom  forgot  they  were  acquainted  with  me, 
also  "said  things."  "We  know  how  the  papers 
can  distort  the  truth ;  how  they  can  make  white 
appear  black;  how  they  can  leave  out,  add  to, 
and  rip  a  man  up  the  back,  and  blast  his  good 
name  in  a  day;  we  know  all  this,  but  that  is  not 
the  question;  they  are  pounding  him;  can  we 
afford  to  mix  in?  Can  we  afford  to  be  seen 
in  his  company?  If  we  meet  him  we  will  treat 
him  with  superficial  politeness,  but  that  will 
be  all."  And  for  years  thereafter  that  was  all. 

Men  strive  to  retain  their  social  position, 
and  it  is  only  right  that  they  should  do  so.  I 
knew  how  they  felt,  and  I  felt  a  delicacy  in  in- 
truding my  presence  upon  them,  and  so,  held 
aloof;  not  that  I  was  embittered — I  was  not;  I 


33 


know  how  inclined  we  all  are  to  jump  at  con- 
clusions, and  how  frequently  we  jump  in  the 
wrong  direction. 

Those  who  had  turned  their  backs  on  me 
were  ignorant  of  the  facts;  they  had  only 
heard  one  side,  and  that  was  not  my  side;  and 
although  I  was  anxious  to  have  my  side  heard 
the  police  were  equally  anxious  not  to  have  it 
heard.  I  had  pleaded  "Not  guilty"  to  the  in- 
dictments, and  this  was  equivalent  to  challeng- 
ing them  to  come  forward  and  confront  me  in 
a  court  of  law. 

Eight  times  I  had  appealed  to  the  District 
Attorney,  and  had  asked  that  I  might  be  given 
an  opportunity  to  vindicate  my  name. 

I  quote  from  my  lawyer's  summing  up  ad- 
dress : — 

["On  May  25th,  1894,  Flagg  1S  indicted  and 
the  indictment  is  held  over  him.  Flagg,  ac- 
cording to  the  sworn  testimony,  and  it  was  not 
refuted,  comes  to  the  door  of  this  court  eight 
times,  to  demand  that  he  be  tried." 

"Imagine  yourself  in  some  such  position; 
you  are  indicted  for  an  offense  concerning 
which  you  maintain  your  innocence.  The 
mere  charge  is  an  aspersion  against  your  good 
name,  and  yet  you  are  compelled  to  come  to 


34 


the  court  where  you  are  indicted  and  accused, 
and  beg  the  officials  connected  with  the  admin- 
istration of  the  law  in  that  court,  to  do  what? 
To  put  you  on  trial,  and  you  cannot  get  a  trial 
for  nearly  two  years."] 

I  had  been  accused  of  almost  every  crime 
on  the  calendar,  and  was  regarded  by  many, 
who  do  not  look  below  the  surface  of  things, 
with  suspicion.  But  this  did  not  worry  the 
police;  and  they  were  inflexible  in  their  deter- 
mination not  to  have  my  case  go  to  trial.  If 
there  is  any  one  thing  in  this  wide  world  that 
will  make  a  blackmailing  policeman  wince  it 
is  a  jury.  He  recoils  from  a  jury  trial  as  the 
"Devil  would  from  holy  water" ;  knowing  that 
his  methods  are  not  popular  with  the  people, 
the  thought  of  being  cross-questioned  is  re- 
pugnant to  him.  Therefore  the  police  decided 
to  settle  their  differences  with  me  out  of  court 
in  their  own  way,  and  without  invoking  the 
aid  of  a  jury. 

A  meeting  to  this  effect  was  held  in  the  pri- 
vate office  of  the  St.  James  Hotel,  at  the  time 
located  on  Broadway,  corner  of  Twenty-sixth 
street. 

I  quote  from  my  lawyer's  summing  up  ad- 
dress:— ["Richard  S.  Davenport,  a  discharged 


35 


janitor  of  Mr.  Flagg's.  The  Davenport  affida- 
vit, made  competent  under  the  ruling  of  the 
court,  in  which  Davenport  says:  'I  met  Cap- 
tain Donohue  and  Captain  James  K.  Price  by 
appointment  at  the  private  office  in  the  St. 
James  Hotel,  January  15,  1895;  and  Donohue 
told  me  that  if  I  would  go  to  his  lawyer  and 
make  affidavit  that  the  houses,  225  and  227 
West  Eighteenth  street,  were  disorderly,  and 
that  Jared  Flagg  was  personally  aware  they 
were  being  used  for  such  purposes,  his  lawyer 
would  make  it  to  my  interest.'  "] 

Davenport  was  not  averse  to  selling  him- 
self; and  after  allowing  himself  to  be  bought 
by  the  police  they  permitted  him  to  remain 
with  them  while  they  discussed  the  situation 
with  several  detectives  who  were  also  present 
at  this  meeting. 

A  man,  like  a  woman,  who  will  sell  himself 
to  one  will  sell  himself  to  another;  and  Daven- 
port, after  having  sold  himself  to  the  police, 
came  over  to  my  side  and  offered  to  sell  him- 
self to  me.  He  told  me  that  Captain  Price 
said: 

"To  keep  on  indicting  and  arresting  Flagg  is 

36 


equivalent  to  sticking  pins  in  a  rhinoceros;  no 
visible  effect  discernible." 

According  to  the  consensus  of  opinion  that 
portion  of  my  anatomy  designated  by  them  as 
hide  was  too  thick.  And  they  finally  resolved 
if  I  was  ever  to  be  brought  to  terms  they  must 
change  their  tactics,  and  they  did.  They 
changed  them  that  very  day — the  day  of  the 
secret  conclave  which  was  held  in  the  little 
back  room,  the  little  private  office  of  the  St. 
James  Hotel,  January  15,  1895. 


37 


CHAPTER  II. 


PANDEMONIUM  means  Hell,  and  from  that 
time  on,  January  15,  1895,  pandemonium 
reigned  supreme  in  the  so-called  uFlagg 
Flats." 

In  this  chapter  I  shall  have  something  to 
say  about  police  "stool-pigeons,"  and  that  those 
unfamiliar  with  the  term  may  know  what  kind 
of  a  bird  a  "stool-pigeon"  is  I  will  define  him. 
This  I  can  do  without  recourse  to  a  dictionary. 

A  "stool-pigeon"  is  a  "ward-heeler,"  a  thug, 
a  low  down  person  who  for  a  consideration 
will  do  any  kind  of  "dirty  work"  to  accom- 
modate the  police. 

Immediately  after  this  St.  James  Hotel 
meeting,  gangs  of  these  thugs  were  employed 
by  the  police  to  invade  my  vacant  flats,  and 
smash  dishes,  break  mirrors,  and  rip  up  with 
sharp  knives  parlor  furniture,  cane-seated  din- 
ing chairs,  bed  spreads,  portieres,  lace  cur- 
tains, carpets,  rugs,  mattresses  and  pillows. 

38 


Also  to  throw  tables,  chairs,  dressers,  chif 
foniers,  pictures  and  ice  boxes  down  the  ail 
shafts.  But  this  was  not  all ;  water  pipes  wen 
cut,  floors  flooded  and  ceilings  ruined.  Axe< 
and  hammers  were  used  in  demolishing  the 
walls,  the  paper,  the  woodwork  and  enamelec 
bath  tubs.  In  my  Sixteenth  and  Seventeenth 
street  flat  buildings,  also  at  225  and  227  Wesi 
Eighteenth  street,  and  109  and  111  Wesi 
Thirty-third  street,  access  to  the  toilets  coulc 
be  had  from  the  main  halls ;  and  eighty  of  these 
expensive  china  bowls  were  broken  with  ham 
mers  and  put  out  of  commission  in  one  night 

Up  town,  down  town,  on  the  East  Side  anc 
on  the  West  Side,  locks  were  broken,  door< 
pried  open,  and  furniture  and  ornaments 
which  had  cost  me  thousands  of  dollars  to  buy, 
were  stolen  or  destroyed  by  these  loafers,  who 
worked  under  the  direction,  and  protection, 
and  in  the  presence  of  our  uniformed  "guard- 
ians of  the  peace"  (?). 

It  is  difficult  for  the  unsophisticated  to  real- 
ize how  such  things  can  happen  in  a  civilized 
country,  but  according  to  the  New  York  daily 
papers  of  April  5th,  1910,  it  is  still  going  on. 

[The  first  and  second  editions  of  this  book 
were  printed  in  1909,  the  third  edition  in 
1910.] 


39 


April  5th,  1910,  the  New  York  World  pub- 
lished the  following: — "The  Mayor  [meaning 
Mayor  Wm.  J.  Gaynor]  then  proceeded  to  109 
Mulberry  Street,  and  entered  the  rooms  on 
the  second  floor  where  he  found  all  the  fur- 
niture smashed  and  even  the  bottoms  of  the 
chairs  torn  out.  The  officer  told  the  Mayor 
that  every  thing  had  been  destroyed  during 
the  recent  police  raid." 

This  kind  of  work,  coupled  with  the  "third 
degree,"  is  what  the  police  call  demonstrating 
the  majesty  of  the  law. 

Once  after  several  of  my  prettiest  flats  had 
been  wrecked,  I  was,  without  a  complaint 
having  been  made,  or  a  warrant  issued,  taken 
by  Detective  McConville  to  the  West  Twen- 
tieth street  police  station  house,  and  escorted 
one  flight  up  to  Captain  Donohue's  private 
bedroom.  The  Captain  was  waiting  for  me 
and  after  dismissing  McConville,  and  closing 
the  door,  requested  me  to  take  a  seat.  For  a 
few  moments  he  eyed  me  quizzically  and  then, 
referring  to  my  wrecked  flats,  asked  how  I 
liked  it. 

My  reply  to  this  question,  although  print- 
able, will  detract  nothing  from  the  narrative  if 
omitted.   Suffice  it  to  say  no  compromise  was 


40 


effected  and  the  reign  of  terror  therefore  con- 
tinued. Every  building  I  had,  in  every  part 
of  the  city,  was  infested  not  only  with  "stool- 
pigeons"  but  by  officers  in  citizen's  attire,  "fly- 
cops,"  as  they  are  called,  with  orders  to  "bull- 
doze" the  old  tenants  out  and  prevent  new  ones 
from  entering.  In  vain  I  appealed  to  the 
different  heads  of  the  "Department"  for 
relief;  for  honest,  not  dishonest,  police  pro- 
tection. Officers  high  in  authority  would 
promise  to  act  vigorously,  but  it  was  mostly 
talk;  even  when  the  "sleuths"  were  called  off, 
it  would  not  be  for  long,  and  in  a  few  weeks 
back  they  would  be  at  their  same  old  vicious 
tricks. 

Hundreds  of  my  tenants  vacated  and  the 
most  desirable  were  the  first  to  leave.  Natu- 
rally this  exodus  impaired  my  income;  with 
large  payments  to  make  and  larger  ones  com- 
ing due,  I  was  in  dire  straits. 

I  quote  the  words  of  my  lawyer  in  summing 
up: — ["Flagg's  tenants  are  not  only  harassed 
by  police  'stool-pigeons,'  but  by  Police  Detec- 
tives McConville,  Rohrig,  Cohn,  Zimmer- 
man, and  several  others  whose  names  I  cannot 
at  the  moment  recall,  but  who  have,  according 
to  their  own  testimony,  infested  his  premises 

at 


lor  months.]"  The  licensed  thieves,  the  "stool- 
pigeons,"  carried  skeleton  keys  and  could  open 
almost  any  door  in  the  "twinkling  of  an  eye." 
They  would  not  only  go  from  one  vacant  flat 
to  another,  and  plunder  and  steal  small  arti- 
cles, but  would  occasionally  back  up  a  truck 
and  cart  a  load  of  furniture  away  in  a  night. 

Once  when  John  Dowd,  a  night  watchman 
employed  by  me,  caught  four  "stool-pigeons" 
in  the  act  of  loading  a  truck  and  threatened  to 
shoot  them  on  the  spot  if  they  did  not  replace 
the  furniture  in  the  flat  from  which  it  was  be- 
ing removed,  two  "plain-clothes  men"  (police- 
men in  citizen's  attire)  sneaked  up  from  behind 
and  seized  and  overpowered  him,  and,  with 
the  aid  of  their  friends,  the  thieves  who  were 
about  to  make  away  with  my  furniture, 
clubbed  him  almost  to  a  pulp;  his  head  and 
one  of  his  arms  were  frightfully  cut,  and  he 
was  literally  covered  with  blood.  On  the 
West  Twentieth  street  police  station  house 
blotter,  opposite  his  name,  are  written  the 
words,  "Resisted  arrest." 

When  the  police  murder  an  innocent  man 
these  are  the  two  words  that  let  them  "down 
and  out."  The  law  accords  to  them  the  privi- 


42 


lege  of  killing  any  person  who  resists  arrest, 
and  they  assume  the  privilege  of  accusing  any 
person  of  this  offense  whom  they  accidentally 
or  on  purpose  kill. 

John  Dowd  did  not  die  that  night,  but  I  was 
informed  he  died  shortly  thereafter. 

Skeleton  keys  were  also  used  by  the  police 
and  the  "stool-pigeons, "  when  in  the  small 
hours  of  the  night  they  would  enter  my  unoc- 
cupied flats  with  their  prostitutes.  It  was 
nothing  unusual  on  arriving  at  my  office  in  the 
morning  to  be  informed  that  in  such-and-such 
a  building,  and  in  such-and-such  a  flat, 
drunken  policemen  had  caroused  half  the 
night  with  women  whom  they  had  brought  in 
from  the  street. 

On  one  occasion  while  passing  from  room 
to  room,  in  showing  what  I  supposed  was  an 
unoccupied  flat  to  a  prospective  tenant,  she 
(the  prospective  tenant)  suddenly  "let  out"  a 
most  unearthly  scream,  and  dashed  out  of  the 
building  shouting  "Police!  Police!"  at  the  top 
of  her  voice.  There  was  no  necessity  for  call- 
ing an  officer,  as  there  was  already  one  in  the 
flat  and  in  bed. 

At  another  time  (also  in  broad  daylight) 
two  policemen  and  a  young  woman  slipped  in 

A3 


through  the  basement  door  of  my  flat  building, 
No.  123  West  Fifty-sixth  street,  and,  although 
they  ran  into  the  arms  of  my  janitress,  they 
brushed  her  aside  and  deliberately  took  posses- 
sion of  a  rear  flat  on  the  ground  floor.  Imme- 
diately upon  receiving  this  information  I  com- 
municated with  Police  Headquarters,  and  a 
special  officer  was  detailed  to  make  an  in- 
vestigation. Together  we  hurried  to  the  flat 
and  there  they  were  "big  as  life,"  with  their 
helmets  off,  making  themselves  comfortable, 
in  my  most  comfortable  upholstered  chairs, 
and  "loading  up"  with  whisky.  They  were 
not,  however,  so  heavily  "loaded"  as  to  be  in- 
capable of  recognizing  their  brother  officer, 
the  "investigator";  and,  without  standing  on 
ceremony,  offered  him  the  bottle.  Had  he  re- 
fused I  might  have  been  surprised;  but  was 
there  ever  a  case  on  record  where  a  police  offi- 
1  cer,  behind  a  closed  door,  declined  to  accept  a 
drink?  He  simply  smacked  his  lips,  closed 
his  eyes,  and  remarked  that  it  was  "hot  stuff." 
So  what  was  the  use  of  complaining?  First 
there  were  two,  now  there  were  three;  and 
had  I  complained  again  there  might  have  been 
four  officers  drinking  in  my  flat. 

The  police  stand  together;  they  are  obliged 


44 


to  do  so  for  self-protection.  What  one  says 
the  others  will  swear  to ;  and  any  citizen  who 
undertakes  to  fight  them  will  have  a  job. 
Were  I  going  all  through  it  again  I  would 
know  better.  Law  or  no  law,  I  would  not  op- 
pose them  but  would,  without  a  murmur, 
throw  up  my  hands  and  let  them  rob  me.  The 
law  says  it  is  as  much  of  a  crime  to  give  a  bribe 
as  to  accept  one,  yet  if  waylaid  by  a  highway- 
man a  citizen  violates  no  law  if  he  deems  it  the 
part  of  discretion  to  part  with  his  pocket  book 
rather  than  his  life,  so  why  make  him  amen- 
able to  the  law  if  he  deems  it  the  part  of  dis- 
cretion to  part  with  his  money  rather  than  his 
good  name?  Had  I  ignored  the  law  and 
parted  with  my  money,  or  even  a  part  of  it,  I 
would  not  have  parted  with  my  good  name. 

When  a  person  knows,  in  his  own  heart  and 
soul,  that  he  has  done  the  right  thing,  he  re- 
spects himself  and  may  say  to  himself  that  he 
cares  nothing  for  the  sneers  of  those  who  con- 
demn him  without  investigating,  but  he  DOES 
care. 

When  a  person  knows,  in  his  own  heart  and 
soul,  that  he  is  the  only  one  who  respects  him- 
self, it  is  poor  consolation.  And  when  I  look 
around  and  try  to  discover  the  whereabouts  of 


45 


some  one  of  the  few  who  may  respect  me,  and 
when  I  think  of  all  the  "mud"  which  has  been 
thrown  at  me,  and  realize  how  difficult  the 
"going"  is  in  this  mud — to  say  nothing  of  how 
it  has  annoyed  and  bespattered  those  near  to 
me,  I  am  frank  to  admit  that  were  I  to  live  this 
portion  of  my  life  over  I  would  think  a  long 
time  before  sacrificing  wealth,  position  and 
the  esteem  of  my  fellow-beings  upon  the  altar 
of  principle. 

A  good  name  once  gone  is  generally  gone 
forever.  This  talk  of  "living  it  down"  is 
often  a  delusion  and  a  snare.  We  are  too 
busy,  have  too  many  business  and  social 
functions  to  perform,  and  too  many 
troubles  of  our  own  to  waste  time  in  in- 
vestigating the  troubles  of  another.  Yet  if  an- 
other is  being  maligned,  somehow  or  other  we 
all  manage  to  find  time  to  listen ;  and  as  we  are 
all  more  prone  to  believe  evil  of  one  than  good, 
many  believe  evil  of  me.  They  do  not  know, 
but  they  believe.  When  "pinned  down"  and 
asked  why  they  believe,  they  can  advance  no 
palpable  reason;  but  they  can  talk,  and  this  is 
how  they  talk:  "Flagg?  What  Flagg— Jared? 
Ohl  excuse  me.  He  never  wronged  me — no, 
not  me  nor  any  person  with  whom  I  am  ac- 

46 


quainted;  but  I  have  heard  so  much;  you 
know  how  people  talk;  and  I  have  read  so 
much — no,  I  cannot  recall  just  what;  but  have 
often  seen  his  name  in  print,  and  I  know 
years  ago  he  had  trouble  with  the  police." 

A  police  officer  inspires  the  average  New 
York  citizen  with  veneration.  In  the  eyes  of 
many  he  is  more  than  man,  superhuman,  and 
to  be  approached  on  hands  and  knees.  There- 
fore in  the  opinion  of  the  masses  any  person 
who  has  incurred  his  wrath,  should  be  for- 
ever  damned. 

All  policemen  are  not,  however,  devoid  of 
honor.  It  would  be  strange  if  out  of  such  a 
large  body  of  men  some  honest  ones  could  not 
be  found.  But  this  does  not  alter  the  fact  that 
many  violate  their  oath  of  office  for  personal 
gain.  Having  men  of  this  stamp  with  whom 
to  contend,  the  question  may  arise  why  I  re- 
mained in  the  flat  business.  Why  did  I  not  seJl 
out  and  be  forever  rid  of  the  whole  sickening 
mess?  But  I  could  not  sell ;  to  sell  meant  ruin- 
ation ;  I  was  in  too  deeply,  and  could  not  turn 
back.  My  only  hope  was  to  go  ahead.  A 
person  who  has  saved  a  few  thousand  dollars 
thinks  as  much  of  it  and  strives  as  hard 
not  to  lose  it  as  the  person  who  has  accu- 
mulated many  thousand.    It's  his  all,  and 


47 


my  all  was  invested  in  furniture  and  flat  prop- 
erty, so  heavily  encumbered,  however,  that  to 
force  a  sale  would  result  in  losing  all.  This 
was  my  position,  and  the  police  appreciating 
the  dilemma  in  which  I  was  placed  redoubled 
their  efforts;  and,  to  still  further  hamper  me, 
warned  every  owner  of  every  building  in 
which  I  had  a  flat  furnished  to  dispossess  me, 
under  penalty  of  arrest.  There  were  about 
one  hundred  of  these  odd  flats,  not  owned  by 
me  but  leased  and  furnished  by  me,  and  every 
landlord  I  had,  with  the  exception  of  Mr. 
Reeder,  dispossessed  me. 

These  were  squally  times,  and  it  seemed  now 
as  if  it  would  only  be  a  question  of  time  before 
my  own  bed  would  be  placed  on  the  sidewalk. 
And,  yet,  in  justice  to  my  fellow  beings,  I 
must  confess  that  there  never  was  a  time, 
not  even  when  things  looked  their  dark- 
est, not  even  when  it  seemed  as  if  the  whole 
world  was  going  to  turn  against  me,  there 
never  was  a  time  that  some  one — a  woman, 
a  man,  or  some  one — did  not  come  forward, 
did  not  take  me  by  the  hand  and  display  traits 
so  noble  that  I  could  not,  and  did  not,  even  for 
one  moment,  lose  confidence  in  mankind. 

Mr.  Reeder  took  me  by  the  hand  and  said: 
"I  shall  not  dispossess  you." 


Gilbert  Totten  Reeder  stands  high  in  the 
community.  He  is  a  man  of  integrity;  this  is 
his  reputation,  and  he  values  it,  but  rather  than 
do  a  dishonorable  act,  rather  than  sacrifice  his 
honor,  he  would  part  with  his  good  reputation. 

And  he  told  Captain  Pickett,  of  the  West 
Thirtieth  street  police  station  house  to  go  ahead 
and  arrest.  "Arrest  us  both,"  he  said.  But 
Pickett  thought  better  of  it.  If  he  locked  Mr. 
Reeder  up  it  might  lead  to  complications,  and 
so  he  failed  to  make  good  his  bluff.  But  other 
police  captains  bulldozed  other  landlords. 
They  also  threatened  and  warned  every  janitor 
I  had,  every  clerk  I  had,  and  every  mechanic  I 
had,  under  penalty  of  being  sent  to  the  "Isl- 
and," to  quit  my  employ.  They  quit — all  quit 
— with  the  exception  of  two  rent  collectors, 
James  Irby  and  William  Young,  both  of  whom 
had  been  in  my  employ  five  years.  Both  said 
they  would  stand  by  me  until  the  "last  gun  was 
fired" ;  but  after  James  had  passed  one  night  in 
a  cell  in  the  West  Twentieth  street  station 
house,  and  incidentally  had  been  clubbed  al- 
most to  death,  he  changed  his  mind.  And 
William,  who  was  an  educated  mulatto  boy, 
may  or  may  not  have  changed  his  mind,  but,  at 
all  events,  he  vanished  that  same  night.  We 


49 


have  our  ideas  as  to  what  happened  to  him, 
but  have  no  evidence.  Twelve  years  have 
passed,  and  I  am  told  by  his  wife  that  she  has 
not  seen  or  heard  from  him,  nor  have  I. 

Every  person  in  any  manner  connected  with 
my  office,  or  buildings,  was  arrested,  or  threat- 
ened with  arrest,  and  as  for  myself,  I  had  been 
arrested  so  many  times  I  was  beginning  to  get 
accustomed  to  it.  Once,  in  writing  to  my 
father,  I  expressed  the  opinion  that  the  worst 
was  over,  as  I  had  not  been  arrested  for  four 
days.  But  I  was  mistaken,  the  worst  was  to 
come. 

It  has  been  said  that  "revenge  is  sweet,"  but 
it  is  sometimes  sour.  If  happiness  consists  in 
making  others  happy,  inversely,  misery  consists 
in  making  others  miserable.  The  spirit  of  re- 
taliation, this  desire  to  get  even,  not  only  re- 
dounds to  the  detriment  of  the  malicious  per- 
son, but  in  ninety-nine  cases  out  of  a  hundred 
draws  him  still  deeper  into  the  mire.  I  wanted 
satisfaction ;  I  wanted  my  name  vindicated ;  I 
wanted  the  facts  to  be  known ;  I  was  not  like 
the  Judge  who  said  to  the  Senator,  "Let  them 
talk;  let  them  publish  all  the  terrible  things 
they  can  think  of;  let  them  lie  all  they  want  to 
about  us,  but  for  God's  sake  don't  let  them  tell 


50 


the  truth."  I  wanted  the  truth  to  be  known. 
The  fact  that  the  indictments  against  me  had 
been  "pigeon-holed"  was  galling.  Thousands 
of  estimable  persons  who  meant  well,  but  who, 
nevertheless,  were  a  little  misty  in  matters  re- 
lating to  law  and  who  regarded  a  charge,  if 
made  by  the  police  against  a  person,  in  the 
same  light  as  they  would  a  conviction,  felt  it 
obligatory  (that  is,  a  duty  they  owed  society) 
to  repeat  to  others  the  false  statements  they  had 
heard  about  me. 

Under  such  circumstances  is  it  surprising 
that  I  felt  sorry  for  myself?  Had  I  been  a  big 
man,  mentally,  I  might  not  have  cared ;  but  un- 
fortunately we  are  not  all  big  men  and  we 
little  fellows,  when  we  imagine  it  is  being 
"rubbed  in"  too  hard,  are  apt  to  become  more 
or  less  spiteful. 

A  man  who  has  the  power  and  yet  refrains 
from  injuring  those  who  have  injured  him  is  a 
great  man — worthy  the  esteem  of  all  men.  We 
all,  little  and  big,  good  and  bad,  prefer  the  es- 
teem of  our  fellow-men.  I  was  no  excep- 
tion to  the  rule;  and,  now,  in  the  calm  of  more 
mature  years,  as  I  review  the  past,  I  regret  I 
did  not  curb  my  temper  and  display  more  man- 
liness. But  at  the  time,  when  the  tension  of  my 


51 


reason  was  relaxed,  then  the  low,  the  brute,  the 
animal  instinct,  itching  to  get  at  them,  was  in 
me.  They — the  police — would  not  volun- 
tarily "come  out  in  the  open,"  come  into  an 
open  court  of  law  and  fight,  so  I  proposed  to 
drag  them  out. 

If  two  or  three  police  captains,  and  a  few 
police  detectives,  without  cause,  could  have 
me  indicted  and  ruined,  I  felt  that  with  cause 
I  could  have  them  indicted  and  "broke."  And 
while  "boiling  over"  with  this  spirit  of  re- 
venge, I  communicated  with  the  foreman  of 
the  Grand  Jury,  and  asked  permission  to  ap- 
pear before  that  honorable  body. 

A  prisoner  calls  his  lawyer  his  "mouth- 
piece." At  the  time  I  was  a  prisoner  out  on 
bail  and  wanted  to  take  my  "mouth-piece"  into 
the  Grand  Jury  room  with  me,  but  they,  the 
jurors,  would  not  stand  for  it.  If  I  had  any- 
thing to  say  I  could  go  in  alone  and  say  it, 
otherwise  remain  out. 

No  person,  unless  he  enjoys  hearing  himself 
talk,  relishes  the  idea  of  standing  up  in  front  of 
twenty-five  Grand  Jurymen  and  entertaining 
them  for  an  hour  or  so;  but  as  it  was  the  only 
way  I  could  wreak  vengeance  on  my  enemies 


52 


I  "braced  up"  and  went  in  "single  handed  and 
alone." 

The  foreman  requested  me  to  be  as  brief  as 
possible,  as  it  was  past  closing  hour,  and  they 
were  about  to  adjourn  for  the  day.  This,  in 
itself,  had  a  tendency  to  disconcert  me,  and 
what  would  I  not  at  that  moment  have  given 
for  a  lawyer?  One  familiar  with  the  "ropes" 
and  not  afraid  to  set  up  a  good,  "stiff  kick," 
whether  his  rights  were  being  trespassed  upon 
or  not! 

Mine  was  too  long  a  tale,  fraught  with  too 
many  wrongs  to  skim  over  in  a  hurry,  and  I 
asked  if  I  could  not  appear  before  them  at  the 
opening  of  their  session,  the  following  morn- 
ing. "No,"  I  was  to  say  what  I  had  to  say  then 
or  not  at  all. 

In  the  Grand  Jury  room  the  twenty-five 
jurors  were  seated  at  a  long,  narrow  table,  and 
I  had  been  told  to  take  a  seat  at  the  far  end  of 
the  table;  but  I  now  stood  up  and  without  any 
"beating  about  the  bush"  proceeded  to  tell  my 
story.  Five  minutes — ten  minutes — and  I  kept 
on  talking,  but  they  seemed  to  be  paying  little 
attention  to  me;  most  of  them  were  examining 
documents  and  whispering  to  each  other.  A 
few  were  gazing  at  the  ceiling.   One  had  his 


watch  on  the  table  before  him,  and  kept  his  eye 
riveted  on  it.  Everything  about  the  place  was 
cold  and  formal,  and  for  all  the  progress  I  was 
making  it  seemed  as  if  I  might  as  well  be  talk- 
ing to  so  many  marble  statues.  Their  faces 
were  mostly  blank;  those  with  expression  wore 
a  bored  expression.  Talking  under  such  cir- 
cumstances is  depressing;  yet  I  knew  I  had 
something  to  say,  and  was  saying  it.  Step  by 
step  I  was  unfolding  my  long  list  of  tribula- 
tions. Presently  two  jurors  up  at  the  other  end 
of  the  table  appeared  interested,  at  least  were 
looking  at  me,  so  I  directed  my  statements  to 
them.  Then  a  man  near  my  end  of  the  long 
table  excused  himself  for  interrupting,  but  re- 
quested that  I  repeat  a  statement  just  made.  I 
did  so,  and  this  little  occurrence  put  me  more 
at  my  ease,  and  when  the  foreman  asked  me  to 
speak  louder  it  was  with  ease  that  I  accom- 
modated him.  By  degrees  others  became  in- 
terested and  I  talked  to  them  also.  At  last  the 
man  with  the  watch  put  it  in  his  pocket.  This 
was  encouraging,  and  I  commenced  to  "warm 
up"  to  my  subject;  and  when  he  turned  in  his 
chair  and  placed  his  hand  to  his  ear,  and 
leaned  forward,  I  took  pains  that  he  not  only 
heard  every  word  I  uttered  but  appreciated  its 


54 


full  force  and  meaning.  I  told  him,  and  I  told 
them  how  in  five  years  I  had  built  up  a  large 
business,  and  how  careful  I  had  been  to  safe- 
guard it;  how  watchful,  how  anxious  I  had 
been  to  hold  my  tenants  and  give  them  satisfac- 
tion ;  how  disastrous  it  would  be  to  my  interests 
if  I  permitted  disorderly  persons  to  gain  access 
to  my  flats.  I  told  him  and  I  told  them  how 
the  captains  of  the  different  precincts  in  which 
my  buildings  were  located,  on  the  East  Side 
and  the  West  Side  of  the  city,  had,  despite  the 
good  character  of  my  tenants,  pre-determined 
to  levy  blackmail  on  me ;  how  they  with  one 
accord  had  met  and  decided  to  force  me  to  pay 
to  each  a  stipulated  sum,  ranging  from  one 
hundred  to  three  hundred  dollars  per  month, 
according  to  the  number  of  buildings  owned  or 
leased  by  me,  in  their  respective  precincts.  I 
told  him  and  I  told  them  how  these  public 
officials  had  approached  me;  how  they  had 
each  prepared  a  long  statement,  a  carefully 
figured  memorandum,  giving  the  rent  derived 
from  each  furnished  flat,  and  the  estimated 
profit  to  me  per  week  and  per  month ;  and  how 
they  had  told  me  that  in  my  case  they  proposed 
to  be  liberal,  and  were  going  to  permit  me  to 
retain  half  of  my  own  money,  half  of  my  own 


55 


profits.  In  other  words,  in  consideration  of 
supplying  all  the  capital,  and  doing  all  the 
work,  I  could  keep  each  month  for  myself  half 
of  what  I  made,  provided  I,  in  consideration 
of  not  being  molested  by  them,  passed  over  to 
them,  in  bills,  not  checks,  the  other  half.  I 
told  him  and  I  told  them  how  I  had  spurned 
this  offer;  how  I  had  declined  to  be  a  party  to 
any  such  underhanded  proceeding;  how  they 
had  given  me  two  days  in  which  to  consider 
the  matter,  and  how  on  the  third  day  I  had 
been  arrested  by  Officer  Barnard  McConville 
and  his  "side  partner."  I  also  told  him,  and  I 
told  them,  how  I  had  subsequently  called  on 
Dr.  Parkhurst  and  how  he  had  appointed 
Arthur  F.  Dennett,  Superintendent  of  the 
Society  for  the  Prevention  of  Crime,  to  per- 
sonally make  an  investigation,  and  how  Mr. 
Dennett  had  personally  called  on  all  my  ten- 
ants, and  of  the  report  he  submitted  to  Dr. 
Parkhurst,  and  that  said  report  was  so  satis- 
factory to  the  latter  that  he  called  on  me  at  my 
office,  and  offered  me  his  support.  I  told  him 
and  I  told  them  how  I  had  called  on  Mr. 
Roosevelt,  who  at  that  time  was  President  of  the 
Police  Board  of  New  York  City,  and  how  he 
had  appointed  Detective  Sergeant  Mason  (one 

56 


of  the  few  members  of  the  force  in  whom  he 
had  confidence)  to  make  an  investigation  of 
my  flats;  and  how,  after  reading  Mason's  re- 
port, he  (Roosevelt)  also  had  volunteered  to 
stand  back  of  me,  and  do  everything  in  his 
power  to  stop  the  further  persecution  of  me  by 
the  police.  I  told  him  and  I  told  them  of  my 
interview  with  Recorder  Goff ,  and  how  he  had 
advised  me  to  "go  over  the  head  of  District  At- 
torney Fellows,  and  ask  permission  to  appear 
before  the  Grand  Jury."  I  told  him  and  I  told 
them  all  this,  and  more,  and  they  listened,  lis- 
tened attentively;  there  was  no  longer  any 
whispering,  any  reading  of  legal  documents; 
no  longer  any  looking  at  the  ceiling.  Every 
man  in  that  room  was  looking  straight  at  me, 
and  I  could  feel  that  they  were  "with  me" ;  that 
they  believed  me ;  that  they  knew  I  was  speak- 
ing the  truth;  and  after  having  detained  them 
long  past  their  closing  hour,  I  thanked  them 
for  the  courtesy  extended  to  me  and  retired. 

On  my  word,  which  was  corroborated  in 
every  particular  by  trustworthy  witnesses,  this 
Grand  Jury,  which  was  in  charge  of  Assistant 
District  Attorney  Lindsay,  and  of  which 
Francis  H.  Leggett,  the  wholesale  grocery- 
man,  was  foreman,  indicted  Police  Captain  J. 


57 


J.  Donohue  and  Police  Captain  James  K. 
Price  and  Police  Detective  Henry  W.  Schill. 

I  wanted  revenge  and  I  got  it;  furthermore, 
got  all  the  trimmings  that  go  with  it;  but  to 
say  I  was  "trimmed"  would  not  adequately 
express  what  they  did  to  me. 

When  we  get  what  we  want,  we  sometimes 
discover  that  it  is  not  what  we  wanted  af- 
ter all. 

As  previously  stated,  the  worst  was  to  come, 
and  it  came  immediately  after  these  officers 
(owing  to  the  indictments)  had  been  sus- 
pended from  the  police  department.  Up  to 
this  time  I  had  had  a  few  captains  and  a  score 
or  two  of  detectives  arrayed  against  me;  but 
now,  almost  a  battalion,  headed  by  McCon- 
ville  and  Acting  Captain  Lynch,  who  suc- 
ceeded Captain  Donohue,  were  lined  up 
against  me,  and  without  a  semblance  of  legal 
evidence,  swooped  down  on  my  flats  like  an 
avalanche,  broke  open  doors,  and  cleaned  out 
every  one. 

"Impossible,  preposterous,  it  could  not  be 
done — it  would  be  illegal — the  police  would 
not  dare  to  smash  in  doors  and  raid  flats  with- 
out lawful  evidence." 

When  I  hear  expressions  of  this  kind,  made 


58 


by  the  uninitiated,  I  think  of  the  lawyer  who 
told  his  client  that  it  could  not  be  done,  that 
it  would  be  unlawful,  that  they  could  not  lock 
him  up.  "Yes,"  said  his  client,  speaking  from 
behind  the  bars,  "but,  I  am  here?'  And  it  was 
the  same  with  my  tenants — they  were  there — 
behind  the  bars. 

In  every  precinct  in  which  my  flats  were 
located  my  tenants  were  illegally  raided  and 
locked  up.  Honest,  hard  working  young 
women,  employed  in  our  department  stores, 
and  living  in  my  tenement  flats,  were  carried 
off  to  jail  by  the  dozen  in  patrol  wagons,  solely 
for  the  purpose  of  enabling  the  police  to 
illegally  make  out  a  seemingly  legal  case 
against  me — one  that  might  result  in  a  con- 
viction. 

To  substantiate  this  assertion  I  could  pub- 
lish a  portfolio  full  of  affidavits,  but  one  will 
suffice : 

City  and  County  of  the  State  of  New  York — 
Louise  Fink,  being  duly  sworn,  deposes  and  says 
that  on  or  about  the  8th  day  of  October,  1894, 
in  the  East  Thirty-fifth  Street  Station-house,  at 
about  7:30  o'clock  in  the  evening  of  such  day, 
she  heard  the  Captain  of  Police  in  charge  of  such 
precinct  make  use  of  and  say  the  following  words, 
or  words  to  the  effect,  to  certain  prisoners  in  the 
said  station-house,  bearing  the  names  of  Addie 


59 


Smith,  Josephine  Merritt  and  Lizzie  Gregory, 
to  wit: — '"There  is  no  occasion  to  carry  on  and 
cry  so,  girls,  for  if  you  set  up  no  defense  and 
plead  guilty,  and  swear  Flagg  knew  you  were 
using  his  flats  for  immoral  purposes,  we  will  let 
you  down  light  to-morrow  morning  at  Special 
Sessions.  It  is  not  you  that  we  want  to  get  the 
dead  wood  on,  but  Flagg." 

Louise  Fink. 

Sworn  to  before  me  on  this,  12th  day  of 
October,  1894. 

George  W.  Miner, 
Commissioner  of  Deeds. 

Maggie  Smith  and  Anna  Chapman,  two 
young  women,  employed  in  Hearn's  Four- 
teenth street  dry  goods  store,  who  were  also  in 
the  station  house  at  the  same  time,  swore  to 
the  same  fact  before  the  same  notary. 

The  police  not  only  made  these  unlawful 
raids,  blighting  the  lives  of  honest  working 
girls,  but  raided  the  occupants  of  flats  over 
which  I  had  absolutely  no  control. 

When  a  landlord  dispossesses  a  tenant  he  is 
compelled,  by  law,  to  employ  a  city  marshal 
to  serve  the  papers.  The  tenant  is  allowed 
three  days  in  which  to  answer.  He  must  then 
vacate  or  appear  in  a  District  Court  and  show 
cause  why  he  should  not  be  evicted.  If  he 
sets  up  any  kind  of  excuse,  the  Judge,  whose 

60 


sympathy  is  naturally  with  the  tenant,  extends 
the  time  a  few  days,  more  or  less  as  the  case 
may  be.  It  is  not  the  landlord,  but  the  Judge 
who  has  the  naming  of  the  day  and  hour,  on 
or  before  which  the  tenant  must  move  out. 
Until  the  time,  named  by  the  Judge,  expires, 
the  landlord's  hands,  figuratively  speaking,  are 
tied ;  and,  if  a  law-abiding  citizen,  he  will  obey 
the  mandate  of  the  law.  I  am  a  law-abiding 
citizen  and  to  exemplify  how  the  police  and 
the  District  Attorney  tried  to  take  advantage 
of  this  fact,  it  is  only  necessary  to  quote  from 
the  Court  Records: — By  the  District  Attor- 
ney:— ["Did  Captain  Lynch  warn  you  that 
the  building,  225  West  18th  Street,  was  being 
used  for  disorderly  purposes?" 
Flagg:— "Yes." 

District  Attorney: — "Did  he  on  May  29th, 
1895,  notify  you,  in  writing,  to  abate  the 
nuisance?" 

Flagg: — "Yes.  And  the  next  day,  May 
30th,  1895,  I  notified  him  in  writing  that  I 
had  instructed  City  Marshal  James  M.  Gano 
to  dispossess  my  tenants,  although  far  from  be- 
ing satisfied  that  they  were,  in  reality,  using 
their  flats  for  immoral  purposes." 

District  Attorney: — "When  you  heard  them 

61 


plead  guilty,  after  they  were  raided,  were  you 
satisfied?" 

Flagg:— "No." 

District  Attorney: — "No?" 

Flagg:— "No." 

District  Attorney: — "Well,  tell  us,  Mr. 
Flagg,  how  many  of  your  tenants  were  raided 
during  June,  1895,  and  how  many  pleaded 
guilty  and  were  fined?" 

Flagg  (to  Judge)  : — "May  I  explain  un- 
der what  conditions  these  raids  were 
made?" 

District  Attorney: — "I  object." 

Judge: — "Objection  sustained." 

Flagg  (to  the  Jury)  : — "Do  you  want  to  get 
at  the  truth  of  this  matter?" 

District  Attorney: — "I  move,  your  Honor, 
to  have  that  remark  stricken  from  the  records." 

Judge  (to  Court  Stenographer)  : — "Strike 
it  out." 

District  Attorney: — "Answer  my  question." 

Judge: — "Answer  the  question." 

Flagg: — "What  question?" 

Court  Stenographer  (reads  question)  : — 
"How  many  of  your  tenants  were  raided  dur- 
ing June,  1895,  and  how  many  pleaded  guilty 
and  were  fined?" 

Flagg: — "McConville  told  them,  they  say, 

62 


that  if  they  would  plead  guilty  and  pay  a  ten 
dollar  fine  they  would  be  discharged." 

District  Attorney: — "I  move,  your  Honor, 
to  have  that  crossed  from  the  records." 

A  Juryman: — "I  would  like  to  have  the 
facts." 

Flagg  (to  Judge)  : — "May  I  give  the  facts 
to  the  jury?" 

District  Attorney: — "I  object." 

Flagg: — "Naturally,  you  object." 

Judge  (to  Flagg)  : — "Any  more  of  this  and 
I  shall  fine  you  for  contempt." 

Flagg  (to  Jury)  :— "City  Marshal  Gano" — 

District  Attorney: — "I  object!  Object!!" 

Judge: — "Objection  overruled." 

Flagg  (to  Jury)  : — "City  Marshal  Gano 
notified  Captain  Lynch,  June  3d,  1895,  that 
he  had,  at  my  request,  served  dispossess  papers 
on  eight  tenants  living  in  the  building 
225  West  1 8th  Street,  and  that  Judge 
Joseph  H.  Steiner  of  the  Eighth  Dis- 
trict Court,  had  given  them,  the  tenants, 
until  June  10th,  1895,  in  which  to  va- 
cate. They  were  therefore  no  longer  under 
my  jurisdiction.  While  still  occupying  my 
flats  I  had  no  legal  right  to  put  them  out.  And 
Captain  Lynch  of  the  Sixteenth  Precinct  knew 


63 


it,  even  knew  that  I  was  to  receive  no  rent, 
from  these  tenants,  during  this  time,  and  yet, 
during  this  extension  of  time,  June  3d  to  June 
10th,  1895,  granted  by  Judge  Steiner,  he, 
Lynch,  swooped  down  on  these  tenants,  who  in 
reality  and  legally  were  no  longer  tenants  of 
mine,  and  raided  them  and  arrested  me.  The 
tenants  told  me  that  McConville  told  them  if 
they  would  plead  guilty  and  swear  I  knew  they 
were  using  my  flats  for  disorderly  purposes, 
and  pay  a  fine  of  ten  dollars,  they  would  be 
discharged.  Three  did  so  plead,  and  did  so 
swear,  and  were  immediately  discharged  in 
the  Jefferson  Market  Police  Court.  The  re- 
maining five  refused  to  commit  perjury  and 
were  held  in  jail  four  days,  and  then,  honor- 
ably discharged  as  there  was  no  incriminating 
evidence  against  them.  I  also  was  discharged 
in  the  Special  Sessions  Court."] 

This  is  probably  the  only  case  on  record 
where  three  inmates  of  an  alleged  disorderly 
house  were  sentenced  to  pay  a  fine,  because 
they  could  be  coerced  into  swearing  falsely, 
and  the  keeper  of  the  same  alleged  disorderly 
house,  on  identically  the  same  evidence,  honor- 
ably discharged  because  he  could  not  be  co- 
erced into  swearing  falsely. 

No  threat  of  imprisonment,  no  cell,  or 

64 


promise  of  immunity  could  make  me  ac- 
knowledge that  I  was  guilty  when  I  knew  I 
was  not  guilty.  But,  it  was  to  be  expected,  out 
of  the  great  number  of  illegally  raided  flats  in 
different  parts  of  the  city,  that  some  of  the 
occupants,  some  of  the  frightened  young 
women  would,  when  incarcerated  in  damp 
station  house  cells  reeking  with  vermin,  swear 
to  anything  to  regain  their  freedom. 

[Station  house  cells  are  filthy  compared  to 
prison  cells.] 

The  police  probably  expected  that  all  the 
young  women  would  commit  perjury  rather 
than  be  confined  in  these  filthy  cells,  and  this 
is  why  they  illegally  arrested  them  all.  But, 
there  is  no  going  back  of  the  facts;  and  the 
facts  show  that  while  some  of  these  young 
women  were  not  imprisoned  and  were  dis- 
charged, after  paying  a  ten  dollar  fine,  because 
they  followed  the  advice  which  they  say  Mc- 
Conville  gave  to  them,  and  committed  perjury 
by  pleading  guilty  when  they  were  not  guilty, 
others,  on  the  same  evidence,  after  being  held 
several  days,  were  honorably  discharged.  And 
why,  without  an  atom  of  incriminating  evi- 
dence against  them,  were  these  honest  young 
women  held?    It  was  because  the  police  ex- 

65 


pected  that  any  day  some  one  or  all  of  them 
might  relent  and,  to  gain  freedom,  be  willing 
to  commit  perjury,  willing  to  swear  that  they 
had  used  my  flats  for  immoral  purposes  when 
they  had  not.  If  they  could  be  coerced  into  so 
swearing  the  District  Attorney  could  then, 
when  my  case  came  on  for  trial,  say  to  my  jury 
— "Look,  see  this  long  list  of  self-confessed 
prostitutes  whom  we  have  raided  and  who 
were  living  in  Flagg's  flats."  This  is  just  what 
the  District  Attorney  did  say  to  my  jury,  but 
the  list  was  not  as  long  as  he  would  have  pre- 
ferred. 

Before  and  during  and  after  my  trial  the 
animus  displayed  by  Assistant  District  Attor- 
ney Bartow  S.  Weeks,  my  ex-clerk,  and  Barney 
McConville,  the  ex-truck  driver,  was  almost 
beyond  belief. 

I  shall  never  forget  a  certain  afternoon 
when  I  was  walking  to  the  West  20th  street 
station  house  with  McConville  on  one  side  of 
me  and  Rohrig  on  the  other.  Both  men  were 
taller  and  more  powerfully  built  than  I.  My 
right  wrist  was  chained  to  Rohrig,  my  left  to 
McConville,  and  I  was  powerless  to  smash 
McConville  in  the  jaw.  He  knew  it,  and  as 
we  were  turning  the  corner  of  18th  Street  and 

66 


Seventh  Avenue,  he  said  to  me: — "I  wish  to 
God  I  was  now  leading  you  to  the  chair  and 
that  I  was  to  be  the  one  to  touch  the  button 
and  send  you  to  Hell,"  accompanying  this  re- 
mark with  an  unprintable  oath. 

Officer  Rohrig  heard  him  say  it — heard 
the  oath — but  Rohrig  is  a  man  who  relies 
on  his  memory,  which  is  defective.  And  yet  I 
noticed,  when  he  was  testifying  under  oath,  he 
never  forgot  to  forget  the  things  that  he  did  not 
wish  to  remember. 

Shortly  after  my  trial,  Barney  McConville, 
who  is  still  a  member  of  the  "Finest,"  was 
promoted.  The  newspapers,  when  eulogizing 
him  at  the  time,  said  he  was  raised  to  the  rank 
of  a  central  office  detective  owing  to  his  effec- 
tive work  in  the  "Flagg  case."  He  did  work 
pretty  hard.  No  matter  in  what  part  of  the 
city  a  flat  of  mine  might  be  illegally  raided,  it 
was  McConville's  function  to  lead  me  to  the 
West  20th  street  station  house,  and  he  was 
right  on  the  job.  I  was  usually  arrested, 
shortly  after  breakfast  and  then  again  in  the 
afternoon  and  occasionally  in  the  evening. 
First  I  was  in,  then  out,  and  in  again,  and  it 
was  difficult  to  attend  to  business.  Bank- 
ruptcy stared  me  in  the  face.  My  build- 

67 


ings  were  vacant;  and  with  no  income, 
with  one  mortgage  after  another  being  fore- 
closed, with  one  piece  of  property  after  an- 
other being  taken  from  me,  with  my  office 
demoralized,  and  my  bank  account  attached,  it 
commenced  to  dawn  on  me  that  revenge  was 
not  what  it  was  "cracked  up  to  be." 

The  situation  was  simply  this:  the  police, 
who  had  failed  in  their  attempts  to  extort 
money,  had  had  me  indicted,  and  I,  who  had 
failed  in  my  attempts  to  force  my  case  to  an 
issue,  had  had  them  indicted.  Now  in  order 
that  they  might  be  reinstated,  put  back  on  the 
force,  it  was  necessary  for  them  to  have  me 
convicted.  If  convicted  the  District  Attor- 
ney could  then  move  to  have  the  indictments 
against  them  dismissed  on  the  ground  that  I 
was  unworthy  of  belief,  and  they  would  forth- 
with be  reinstated.  It  was  for  this  reason  that 
they  were  so  eager  to  work  up  a  case  against 
me.  I  quote  the  words  of  my  lawyer  when  ad- 
dressing the  jury:  "It  was  stated,  admitted  in 
open  court,  by  District  Attorney  Fellows 
himself,  that  this  prosecution  held  the  balance 
for  Police  Captains  Price  and  Donohue,  and 
that  other  members  of  the  force  are  also  in 
danger;  that  the  charges  against  them  might 


68 


be  multiplied;  that  Captain  Price  is  await- 
ing the  fate  of  the  indictment  against  him; 
that  the  police  have  been  so  informed  in  this 
court  house,  and  by  the  District  Attorney  of 
this  County  in  person,  at  the  Bar  of  the  Court 
of  Oyer  and  Terminer,  that  upon  the  out- 
come of  this  prosecution  against  Jared 
Flagg  depends  the  fate  of  these  police  cap- 
tains and  detectives,  and  whether  they  shall 
be  tried  or  not. 

"So  you  see  what  terrible  influence  is  at 
work  from  this  police  center  to  induce  you  to 
convict  this  defendant,  operating  upon  the 
minds  of  these  officers  to  incite  them  to  effect 
this  object."] 

Realizing  the  unfair,  the  foul  means 
adopted  by  the  police  to  beslime  my  reputa- 
tion in  order  to  save  their  own,  I  felt  that  if 
their  illicit  acts  could  be  ventilated  in  a  pub- 
lic court  of  law  it  would  go  a  long  way  to- 
wards helping  me  to  vindicate  my  name. 
The  public  at  large  do  not  believe  in  "strik- 
ing a  man  below  the  belt."  If  there  is  to  be 
a  fight,  the  public  at  large  want  to  see  a  fair 
fight.  Figuratively,  I  had  been  knocked 
down  by  a  foul  blow,  and  I  wanted  to  stand 
up.   Our  greatest  glory  is  not  in  never  fall- 


en? 


ing,  but  in  rising  every  time  we  fall;  and  I 
wanted  to  rise  and  fight  for  my  rights.  But 
there  were  others  who  cared  nothing  for  my 
rights,  who  were  only  interested  in  themselves, 
and  whose  only  desire  was  to  see  the  matter 
"hushed  up."  They  felt  that  there  had  al- 
ready been  too  much  publicity.  "Never  mind 
about  your  name,  let  it  be  forgotten;  never 
mind  about  the  vindication;  never  mind  what 
the  public  may  think  of  you,  we  stand  high  in 
its  estimation,  and  we  cannot  afford  to  have 
your  case  go  to  trial  owing  to  the  stigma 
which  will  attach  itself  to  a  case  of  this  char- 
acter whether  you  are  innocent  or  guilty." 
This  is  what  certain  relatives  of  mine  said; 
but  it  is  a  consolation  to  know  that  they  were 
not  near  relatives;  not  brothers,  or  sisters,  or 
parents. 

Late  one  afternoon,  one  of  these  relatives 
called.  He  found  me  alone  in  my  bedroom;  I 
had  no  office;  I  was  a  bankrupt;  and  the  fol- 
lowing conversation  took  place:  "Judging 
from  your  environments  I  should  imagine  you 
were  a  little  pressed  for  ready  cash." 

"I  am." 

"The  only  time  money  will  do  you  any  good 
is  when  you  haven't  got  any.    You  make 


70 


money,  but  what  do  you  do  with  it?  You  are 
not  a  drinking  man.  Do  you  gamble  it  all 
away?"  he  asked. 

"Never  lost  a  dollar  in  my  life  gambling." 

"But  you  have  lost  everything?" 

"Everything,"  I  said. 

"Even  your  reputation?" 
"Yes,  but  no  person  can  lose  his  reputation 
without  gaining  another,"  I  added. 

"Very  true;  and  you  have  gained  the  other; 
a  beautiful  reputation,  I  must  say.  You  have 
disgraced  the  family;  look  at  your  brothers 
and  sisters;  see  the  position  they  hold  in  so- 
ciety; I  should  think  you  would  want  to  hang 
your  head  in  shame  and  sink  into  oblivion,  yet 
I  see  by  the  papers  that  you  contemplate 
shortly  airing  yourself  in  a  public  court  of 
law.  When  does  your  case  come  up  for  trial?" 

"It  is  now  on  the  Day  Calendar  and  liable 
to  be  reached  at  any  time,"  I  remarked. 

"You  know  best,  but  if  I  were  in  your  posi- 
tion I  know  what  I  would  do." 

"What?"  I  asked. 

"Quietly  pack  my  trunk  and  cross  the 
pond." 

"If  it  would  cramp  you  financially  to  cross 


7i 


the  river — to  Hoboken — how  could  you  cross 
the  ocean?"  I  inquired. 

"Don't  let  that  worry  you;  you  will  be  sup- 
plied with  funds,  more  than  enough  to  keep 
you  going  for  several  years  to  come;  I  will 
arrange  all  that." 

"What!  You  advise  me  to  run  away,  leave 
the  country?" 

"This  is  not  the  only  country  in  the  world," 
he  said. 

"But  it  is  my  only  country,  and  you  advise 
me,  an  innocent  man,  to  leave  it  forever?" 

"It  might  be  best,"  he  thought. 

"Best!  How  best?  Are  you  aware  that  I 
have  committed  no  crime — have  done  abso- 
lutely nothing  wrong?  I  am  charged  with 
having  committed  a  misdemeanor;  but  a  mis- 
demeanor is  not  a  felony;  and  even  if  I  should 
be  convicted — though  innocent — I  would  still 
be  as  much  of  a  citizen  of  these  United  States 
as  you." 

"That's  not  the  question,"  interposed  my  rel- 
ative, "we  do  not  say  you  are  guilty,  but  it  is 
the  disgraceful  newspaper  notoriety  that  we 
dread;  and  you  know  how  it  will  be  if  your 
case  is  allowed  to  go  to  trial." 

"But  I  will  be  acquitted — vindicated." 


72 


"That  makes  no  difference.  The  papers  will 
talk,  and  all  this  notoriety  is  offensive  to  the 
family;  we  have  a  name  to  preserve." 

"Yes,"  I  said,  "but  have  I  no  right  to  defend 
myself?   How  about  my  name?" 

"It  will  be  forgotten.  If  you  go  away  it 
will  all  die  out;  people  forget;  and  the  family 
will  not  be  subjected  to  this  everlasting  news- 
paper scandal." 

"And  to  end  it  all  you  would  have  me  be- 
come a  fugitive  from  justice,  a  criminal  in 
reality?" 

"I  do  not  say  that,"  he  said. 

"But  that  is  what  it  means,"  said  I.  "It 
means  that  you  would  have  me  become  an 
exile ;  would  have  me  leave  my  native  country 
and  go  to  some  foreign  land,  NEVER  to  return, 
isolated,  banished  from  home  for  life,  from 
kindred,  friends  and  all  that  I  hold  dear.  It 
means  that  you  would  have  me  leave  them  all, 
violate  my  oath,  break  my  word,  forfeit  my 
bail  bond  and  go." 

"Your  bondsman  is  a  rich  man;  he  would 
not  care." 

"Not  care!  and  on  my  bond  for  seven  thou- 
sand five  hundred  dollars?" 


73 


"It's  only  a  bagatelle  to  him,"  my  relative 
remarked. 

"But  he  is  a  friend,  a  real  friend,  he  is  trust- 
ing me,  he  has  confidence  in  me;  and  you 
would  ask  me  to  shatter  that  confidence,  to 
betray  that  friendship,  and  quietly  abscond, 
run  away,  sneak  away?  Oh!  no — not  I! 
NEVER!  Not  if  I  were  to  be  electrocuted.  You 
do  not  know  me;  I  am  not  one  of  that  kind. 
When  my  case  comes  up,  when  the  Clerk  of 
the  Court  calls  out,  'Jared  Flagg  to  the  Bar,' 
you  will  see  me  there.  I  will  face  the  music, 
and  if  the  case  goes  against  me  I  shall  take  my 
medicine  like  a  man.  There's  the  door — 
Good-day." 


74 


CHAPTER  III. 


IN  1895-6  Colonel  John  R.  Fellows  was  Dis- 
trict Attorney  of  the  City  of  New  York,  and  it 
just  so  happened  at  this  particular  time  that  he 
had  an  assistant  named  Weeks — Bartow  S. 
Weeks — who  had  formerly  been  employed  by 
me  as  a  bookkeeper,  but  whom  I  dis- 
charged. I  quote  from  the  Court  Rec- 
ord:— [Weeks:  "Mr.  Flagg,  during  what 
years  were  you  engaged  in  the  wholesale  pro- 
vision business?"  Flagg:  "You  ought  to 
know,  you  were  my  bookkeeper  until  I  dis- 
charged you  for  incompetency."] 

This  young  man  Weeks,  it  appears,  enter- 
tained a  secret  grudge  against  me;  he  also  en- 
tertained a  desire  to  make  a  record  for  himself 
as  a  prosecuting  attorney,  and  by  some  hook  or 
crook  when  he  discovered  that  the  "pigeon- 
holed indictments"  were  to  be  resurrected  and 
placed  on  the  calendar,  he  induced  the  Dis- 
trict Attorney  to  deputize  him  to  aid  in  work- 
ing up  the  case  against  me.    In  justice  to 


75 


Weeks  it  can  be  truthfully  said  he  aided.  He 
worked  against  me  as  he  had  never  worked  for 
me,  and  with  all  the  venom,  hate  and  malice 
of  a  disgruntled  and  discharged  employe, 
racked  his  brain  in  formulating  the  indict- 
ments which  were  secured  against  me  by  false 
swearing,  perjury  and  lies. 

When  Judge  Newberger,  before  whom  my 
case  was  being  tried,  discovered  that  Weeks 
had  formerly  been  a  clerk  of  mine,  he  ex- 
cluded him  from  the  case.  But  prior  to  the 
time  my  case  was  brought  into  court,  all 
during  the  shameful  destruction  of  my  fur- 
niture, Weeks  was  the  most  accommodating 
ally  the  police  had  in  the  District  Attorney's 
office.  Time  and  again  I  endeavored  to  ex- 
plain to  the  District  Attorney  the  cause  of 
Weeks'  animus,  but  it  did  no  good.  Colonel 
John  R.  Fellows  is  now  dead,  and  as  it  is 
against  my  principles  to  attack  a  dead  man  I 
shall  not  explain  why  it  did  no  good. 

The  offense  charged  against  me  was  a  mis- 
demeanor, not  a  felony,  and  there  ,  is  a  dif- 
ference between  the  two.  A  felon,  a  person 
convicted  of  a  crime,  loses  his  citizenship, 
his  right  to  vote;  but  a  person  convicted  of  a 
misdemeanor,  a  petty  offense,  does  not  lose  his 
citizenship  or  right  to  vote.   He  is  not  a  crim- 

26 


inal.  I  was,  and  always  have  been,  a  citizen 
of  the  United  States.  No  person  living  or  dead 
ever  justly  accused  me  of  committing  a  crime. 
Why,  then,  when  charged  with  an  offense 
which  was  not  a  crime,  should  thousands  of 
dollars  be  filched  from  the  people?  It  is  said 
that  my  trial,  which  lasted  almost  ten  days 
and  nights  (evening  sessions  were  held),  cost 
the  taxpayers  of  this  city  a  small  fortune;  and 
yet  it  was  not  the  people's  trial;  the  people 
made  no  complaint;  the  public  or  my  neigh- 
bors had  nothing  against  me  or  my  tenants.  It 
was  not  the  People  vs.  Jared  Flagg,  but  the 
Blackmailing  Police  vs.  Jared  Flagg;  and  it 
was  the  police  that  squandered  the  people's 
money.  The  police,  when  it  comes  to  spend- 
ing other  people's  money  for  their  own  protec- 
tion, are  not  noted  for  being  coy. 

When  a  person  of  wealth  is  accused  of  some 
crime  or  offense,  and  escapes  punishment,  we 
attribute  it  to  his  money;  but  in  my  case  the 
money  was  on  the  other  side,  and  it  was  unlim- 
ited. Everything  in  any  way  tending  to  mili- 
tate against  me,  the  police  possessed.  They 
pulled  "every  wire,"  controlled  every  wheel  of 
the  vast  machinery;  and,  what  is  more, 
worked  them  all  for  all  they  were  worth. 

When  Theodore  Roosevelt  heard  of  the 


77 


underhanded  tactics  of  the  police,  he  was  in- 
censed beyond  measure.  The  records  of  the 
Police  Board  of  August  9,  1895,  show  that  he 
publicly  declared,  at  a  meeting  of  the  said 
Board,  that  I  was  being  most  unjustly  per- 
secuted, and  that  he  proposed  to  have  it 
stopped;  and  it  was  no  fault  of  his  that  it  did 
not  stop.  He  worked  long  and  hard  and  did 
all  in  his  power  to  see  that  justice  should  be 
done,  but  what  can  one  man  outside  of  "Tam- 
many" accomplish  against  an  army  en- 
trenched in  the  Fourteenth  street  Wigwam? 

In  this  connection  I  insert  a  copy  of  a  letter 
sent  to  Mr.  Roosevelt  by  Arthur  F.  Dennett, 
Superintendent  of  the  Society  for  the  Preven- 
tion of  Crime. 

Society  for  the  Prevention  of  Crime. 

Incorporated  1878. 
No.  105  East  22d  Street. 

OFFICERS 

C.  H.  Parkhur^t,  President.  Thaddeus  D.  Kenneson,  Secretary. 

Henry  M.  MacCracken,  Vice-President.      Edward  A.  Newell,  Treasurer. 
William  H.  Arnoux,  Vice-President.  Frank  Moss.  Counsel. 

Arthur  F.  Dennett,  Superintendent. 

New  York,  August  12, 1895. 
Theodore  Roosevelt,  Esq., 
Police  Commissioner, 
300  Mulberry  St.,  New  York. 
Dear  Sir: — I  notice  by  the  papers  that  you 
are  going  to  give  Jared  Flagg  a  hearing.  I 

78 


THEODORE  ROOSEVELT 

(Now  President  of  the  United  States) 

Testifying  to  the  injustice  of  the  charges  brought 

against  Jared  Flagg. 
[A  reprint  from  the  New  York  World  of  Feb.  26,  1896.] 


am  glad  that  you  take  that  position  as  I  think 
you  are  right,  and  I  am  sure  that  if  Mr.  Flagg 
is  given  a  hearing  he  will  be  able  to  back  up 
all  his  statements.  While  I  do  not  regard  him 
as  a  saint  by  any  means,  yet  I  feel  sure  that  he 
has  been  persecuted  very  much  by  the  police 
since  he  went  before  the  Extraordinary  Grand 
Jury,  and  they  have  tried  to  retaliate  on  him 
by  driving  him  out  of  business  and  intimidat- 
ing his  tenants. 

Yours  truly, 

Arthur  F.  Dennett/' 

Reverend  Doctor  C.  H.  Parkhurst  was  also 
incensed,  and  when  the  facts  were  placed  be- 
fore him  he  almost  forgot  for  the  moment  his 
religious  proclivities  and  came  within  an  ace 
of  using  pretty  strong  language. 

Ordinarily  such  a  case,  a  mere  misde- 
meanor, could  have  been  disposed  of  in  ten 
minutes;  but  there  was  more  to  my  case  than 
appeared  on  its  surface.  The  bad  name  of  the 
police  department  was  at  stake.  If  a  police 
officer  considered  it  wise  to  pay  a  cash  bonus 
of  fifteen  thousand  dollars  to  be  made  a  cap- 
tain, and  in  1895  tms  was  tne  market  price,  the 
amount  demanded  for  the  privilege  of  black- 

81 


mailing  people  in  his  precinct;  what  was  to 
become  of  him  if  suspended?  Where  did 
his  fifteen  thousand  come  in?  Who  was  to 
make  good?  What  would  happen  if  this  kind 
of  thing  continued?  These  were  momentous 
questions.  No  wonder  they  were  interested; 
no  wonder  that  during  the  long  days  of  my 
trial  the  police  packed  the  court  room  to  the 
doors. 

In  all  the  history  of  New  York;  in  all  the 
history  of  the  police  department  of  New 
York;  I  was  the  first,  the  first  citizen,  to  have 
two  police  captains  indicted  and  suspended 
from  the  force.  I  had,  according  to  their 
code  of  ethics,  set  a  bad  precedent.  I  had 
given  testimony  and  the  Grand  Jury  had  be- 
lieved me.  It  was  now  up  to  them — the  police, 
— to  impeach  my  testimony;  not  only  that 
Donohue  and  Price  might  be  reinstated,  but 
that  the  dishonor  and  bad  name  of  the  "de- 
partment" might  be  upheld;  in  plain  English, 
that  they  might  be  able  to  bulldoze,  swindle, 
and  rob  the  people  in  the  future  as  they  had  in 
the  past.  With  this  end  in  view  practically  all 
the  police  detectives  of  the  city  turned  out  to 
assist  the  District  Attorney,  and  they  managed 
to  "roundup"  quite  an  array  of  "street-walkers" 

82 


and  i4stool-pigeons,"  all  of  whom  were  eager 
to  curry  favor  with  the  police  by  testifying  ac- 
cording to  instructions.  To  gaze  on  this 
throng;  to  see  the  court  room  packed  with 
officers  in  full-dress  uniform;  to  see  the  little, 
but  big,  pompous  District  Attorney,  the 
officious  Weeks,  his  assistant,  the  "silver- 
tongued"  orator,  Lewis,  and  the  other  Assist- 
ant District  Attorneys,  poring  over  voluminous 
portfolios  filled  with  legal  documents  and 
reams  of  typewritten  matter,  lying  depositions, 
which  it  had  taken  months  to  accumulate;  to 
see  them  with  their  heads  together  in  earnest 
conversation ;  and  every  now  and  then  beckon- 
ing to  some  police  inspector,  or  captain,  or  de- 
tective, to  come  over  inside  the  railing;  to  see 
them  whispering,  and  to  see  the  official  mes- 
sengers dashing  hither  and  thither,  and  push- 
ing and  shoving  and  forcing  their  way 
through  the  throng  as  though  it  were  a  matter 
of  life  or  death  for  them  to  obey  orders 
promptly;  a  casual  observer  would  have  sup- 
posed, where  there  was  so  much  smoke  there 
must  be  some  fire,  some  evidence  to  convict; 
but  it  was  all  one  stupendous  bluff — there  was 
nothing  to  it — the  witnesses  who  had  promised 
to  do  and  say  so  much,  when  subjected  to  the 

83 


test,  when  it  came  right  down  to  the  "fine 
point,"  when  placed  under  oath,  and  warned 
by  the  judge  of  the  penalty  of  perjury,  wilted, 
and  their  accusations  proved  to  be  mere  ex- 
halations of  "hot  air."  But  this  was  not  the 
case  with  my  witnesses,  and  if  any  person, 
especially  any  person  who  questions  the  au- 
thenticity of  any  statement  herein  contained, 
will  inspect  the  records  relating  to  my  trial, 
on  file  in  the  General  Sessions  Court,  he  will 
be  convinced  of  this  fact.  He  will  have  his 
eyes  opened;  he  will  read  in  black  and  white 
what  Theodore  Roosevelt,  now  President  of 
the  United  States,  had  to  say  in  my  behalf,  and 
also  what  the  Reverend  Doctor  C.  H.  Park- 
hurst  had  to  say  in  my  behalf. 

It  was  due  to  no  outside  influence  that  these 
men  came  forward  to  defend  me.  I  was  not 
introduced  to  them  by  influential  relatives. 
No  man  ever  amounted  to  any  thing  who 
traveled  on  his  grandfather's  reputation  or 
the  reputation  of  any  other  relative.  I  intro- 
duced myself;  went  to  them,  as  man  to  man, 
and  asked  to  have  my  statements  investigated. 
"If,"  said  I,  "you  become  convinced  that  I 
am  being  unjustly  persecuted,  I  want  you  to 
stand  by  me,"  and  they  promised,  if  convinced, 

84 


[A  reprint  from  the  New  York  Herald  of  Feb.26,  1896.] 


to  do  so.  Neither  Roosevelt  nor  Parkhurst 
will  stand  up  for  a  man  simply  to  accom- 
modate him;  they  must  know  what  they  are 
doing;  they  must  know  the  facts;  must  know 
the  man,  must  know  his  past  record,  must 
know  him  to  be  worthy,  before  they  will  take 
the  stand  in  a  court  of  law  and  defend  him 
under  oath.  Therefore  it  was  not  until  they 
had  become  convinced,  beyond  all  reasonable 
doubt,  after  a  full  and  impartial  investigation, 
that  they  really  promised  to  come  forward  and 
support  me  in  my  defense. 

Could  money  or  influence,  influence  such 
witnesses?  Then  why  assert,  without  know- 
ing any  of  the  facts,  that  I  have  been  guilty  of 
wrongdoing,  when  men  of  this  calibre  know- 
ing all  the  facts,  testify  under  oath  to  the  con- 
trary? 

There  is  a  difference  between  "hearsay  evi- 
dence" and  real  evidence.  "Hearsay  evi- 
dence" is  never  admissible  in  a  court  of  law. 
Roosevelt  and  Parkhurst  demanded  real  evi- 
dence, and  it  was  owing  to  the  fact  they  re- 
ceived such  evidence  that  there  was  nothing 
"mealy  mouthed"  about  their  testimony.  In 
expressing  their  views,  based  on  the  facts 

8- 


brought  out  by  their  investigation,  they  did 
not  qualify  statements  or  mince  matters. 

When  the  suave  and  oily  Prosecutor  Lewis 
pleadingly  asked  Doctor  Parkhurst,  in  his 
sweetest  and  most  persuasive  tone  of  voice,  if 
he  really  wanted  the  jury  to  understand  that 
he — the  Doctor — had  absolute  confidence  in 
Mr.  Flagg's  word,  Doctor  Parkhurst  replied 
as  per  the  official  court  record,  "Yes,  sir!  That 
is  just  what  I  wish  the  jury  to  believe." 

By  asking  this  question  Prosecutor  Lewis 
established  (much  to  his  disgust)  my  reputa- 
tion for  veracity.  Here  was  the  great  Doctor 
Parkhurst,  respected  and  of  world-wide  fame, 
testifying  under  oath,  in  an  open  court  of  law, 
and  when  asked  if  he  had  absolute  confidence 
in  my  word  (without  qualification)  said  [And 
I  am  quoting  from  the  court  records]  :  "When 
Jared  Flagg  makes  a  statement  to  me  I  believe 
him." 

This  reply  was  so  different  from  what 
Prosecutor  Lewis  expected  or  desired  that  it 
rendered  him  speechless  and  he  was  forced 
to  have  recourse  to  his  smelling  salts  which 
fortunately  he  had  with  him. 

In  important  trials  we  frequently  hear  the 
question  asked,  "Will  the  defendant  take  the 

88 


stand  in  his  own  behalf?"  It  would  seem  that 
any  person,  guilty  or  not  guilty,  if  accused, 
would  want  to  say  a  good  word  for  himself. 
But  the  moment  he  says  one  word,  in  his  own 
defense,  a  hundred  or  more  may  testify  against 
him.  The  moment  an  accused  person  takes 
the  witness  stand,  that  moment,  in  the  lan- 
guage of  lawyers,  "he  opens  the  door,"  and 
the  opposing  lawyers  are  no  longer  restrained 
and  legally  confined  to  the  specific  charge  for 
which  he  is  on  trial.  By  taking  the  stand,  he 
places  his  character  at  stake.  His  past  life, 
his  record  is  at  issue;  and  if  his  reputation 
can  be  shown,  by  the  testimony  of  witnesses, 
to  be  questionable,  that  testimony  can  be  used 
against  him  in  arriving  at  a  verdict.  But  if 
he  refrains  from  taking  the  stand  in  his  own 
behalf,  evidence  relating  only  to  the  specific 
charge  of  which  he  is  accused  can  be  sub- 
mitted, or  considered,  by  the  judge  or  jury. 
This  is  law,  and  this  explains  why  lawyers, 
when  defending  clients  with  "shady  reputa- 
tions" refuse  to  permit  them  to  take  the  stand. 
But  my  character  is  not,  and  was  not  "shady"; 
my  past  life  was  clean;  the  consequences  of 
cross-examination  had  no  terrors  for  me;  there 
was,  there  is,  no  page  in  the  book  of  my  life 

89 


that  cannot  be  opened.  Therefore  I  took  the 
stand  in  my  own  defense,  which  was  equiva- 
lent to  saying  to  my  accusers,  if  you  have  any 
person  in  this  community,  or  in  any  other  com- 
munity, who  has  aught  to  say  against  my  char- 
acter, bring  him  in;  "the  door  is  open";  I  am 
here,  on  the  stand,  and  waiting  to  confront 
him. 

But  did  any  one  enter?  Not  a  soul  who 
could  question  my  veracity  or  character;  not 
even  those  whom  I  charged  with  attempted 
extortion. 

I  quote  from  the  words  of  my  lawyer  when 
summing  up  before  the  jury: — ["Jared  Flagg 
has  lived  in  this  community  twenty-five  years. 
Whatever  there  is  of  him  is  the  result  of  self- 
reliance,  self-exertion.  He  has  borne  a  good 
reputation,  as  the  evidence  in  this  case  proves. 
Not  one  human  being,  not  one  witness,  has  ap- 
peared against  it;  and  the  door  was  wide  open, 
and  Mr.  Flagg  invited  attack  by  his  attitude, 
by  taking  the  stand  in  his  own  defense,  and  his 
Honor  will  so  charge  you.  When  we  put  his 
character  in  issue  we  offered  conflict  to  the 
Prosecution.  It  was  a  challenge  to  put  upon 
the  witness  stand  any  man  or  any  woman  who, 
from  the  beginning  of  this  defendant's  life. 


90 


down  to  the  day  of  his  trial,  could  assert  aught 
against  his  moral,  his  pacific,  his  good  citizen- 
ship, reputation  and  character. 

"Yet,  with  all  the  venom  evidenced  in  this 
case;  with  all  the  police  instincts;  with  the 
terrible  consequences  to  them  of  a  verdict  of 
acquittal  to  incite  their  zeal  and  awaken  mali- 
cious inquiry;  with  all  the  nine  police  officers 
attached  to  that  precinct;  and  with  all  the 
other  officers  involved  in  this  prosecution; 
with  Donohue,  who  was  indicted,  in  com- 
mand; with  Price,  in  the  adjacent  precinct, 
hanging  between  heaven  and  earth  on  the 
result  of  this  case ;  with  the  incentive  terribly 
impressing  itself  upon  him;  throughout  this 
broad  land,  in  all  the  days  of  this  trial,  not  one 
human  creature  could  be  found,  with  all  the 
facilities  for  malignant  enquiry,  not  one  hu- 
man creature  could  be  found  to  come  upon  that 
stand  to  say  that  Jared  Flagg  was  not  a  peace- 
able man;  was  not  an  honorable  man;  wasn't 
a  moral  man;  wasn't  a  good  citizen. 

"He  stands  unchallenged,  uncontradicted, 
unsullied,  before  you  upon  the  witness  stand, 
without — as  the  evidence  in  this  case  shows — 
a  blemish  upon  his  name."] 

"Ah!  but,  this  is  what  his  lawyer  said.  A 


91 


lawyer  can  say  ANYTHING,  when  summing  up 
before  a  jury,"  some  persons  have  asserted,  but 
they  are  mistaken.  A  lawyer  cannot  stretch 
the  truth  when  addressing  a  jury;  he  must 
keep  within  the  scope  of  the  facts.  If  he  makes 
a  statement  that  is  not  in  accordance  with  the 
evidence,  the  Judge  or  the  opposing  counsel 
has  a  right  to  interrupt  him. 

The  Court  Record  shows  that  the  late 
Charles  W.  Brooke,  my  lawyer,  was  not  in- 
terrupted when  summing  up  before  my  jury, 
notwithstanding  that  District  Attorney  Fel- 
lows and  five  of  his  assistants  were  eagerly 
listening  to  every  word  he  uttered,  and  only 
waiting  for  half  a  chance  to  "call  him  down." 

When  Mr.  Brooke  informed  the  jury  that 
I  stood  unchallenged,  uncontradicted  upon 
the  witness  stand,  without,  as  the  evidence  in 
the  case  showed,  a  blemish  upon  my  name, 
Fellows  and  his  assistant  District  Attorneys  re- 
mained silent;  they  could  not  gainsay  it;  it 
was  a  fact;  but  had  it  not  been  true,  all  six 
would,  in  the  "twinkling  of  an  eye,"  have  been 
on  their  feet,  objecting. 

They  kept  me  in  the  witness  chair  two  days 
and  a  half;  I  was  cross-examined  by  five  dif- 
ferent assistant  District  Attorneys,  and  al- 


92 


though  the  Court  Record  shows  that  not  one 
word  of  my  testimony  was  contradicted,  no 
mention  of  this  fact  was  made  by  the  news- 
papers ;  but  on  the  contrary  certain  editors  and 
certain  persons  intimated  that  the  charge  of 
blackmail,  set  up  by  me,  was  merely  an  excuse 
that  I  might  pose  as  a  persecuted  person. 

For  almost  a  year  prior  to  my  trial  Cap- 
tains Donohue  and  Price  had  been  going  about 
interviewing  reporters,  and  telling  politicians 
with  a  "pull,"  and  ministers  with  influence, 
that  I  was  a  scoundrel  and  a  liar,  and  had  in- 
vented this  yarn  about  blackmailing,  simply 
to  awaken  public  sympathy.  All  this  talk  had 
its  effect.  It  affected  Father  Ducey,  and  it 
moved  the  Reverend  J.  A.  B.  Wilson  to  such 
an  extent  that  he  felt  constrained  not  only  to 
come  and  lunch  with  me,  but  to  appear  against 
me  at  my  trial. 

I  quote  from  the  Court  Record: — [Mr. 
Flagg:  "Mr.  Wilson  called  at  my  apartment 
and  said  if  I  would  manifest  a  contrite  spirit, 
and  admit  that  I  was  a  sinner,  and  withdraw 
my  charges  against  the  police,  and  incidentally 
defray  the  cost — seven  hundred  dollars — of 
having  electricity  installed  in  his  church, 
which  is  located  on  Eighteenth  street  west  of 


93 


eighth  avenue,  he  would  intercede  for  me  at 
the  Throne  of  Grace,  and  pray  that  I  might 
be  saved  from  the  wrath  of  the  world  to 
come."] 

Many  persons  who  believe  one  side  of  a 
story,  until  they  hear  the  other,  said  they  did 
not  believe  that  any  member  of  our  mag- 
nificent police  force  would  stoop  to  blackmail ; 
but  why  did  not  the  police  say  so?  Why  did 
not  Donohue  and  Price  say  so,  when  I,  under 
oath,  and  on  the  witness  stand,  in  the  General 
Sessions  Court,  accused  them  to  their  faces  of 
attempted  extortion.  They  were  there.  They 
heard  me.  Why  did  they  not  deny  it?  If  it  was 
not  true,  why  did  they  not  prefer  charges 
against  me,  and  have  me  arrested,  tried,  con- 
victed, and  sent  to  state's  prison  for  perjury?  I 
will  tell  you  why.  There  is  no  law  against  lying. 
Simple,  everyday,  conversational  lying  is  per- 
missible— not  punishable;  but  there  is  a  law 
against  perjury,  which  is  testifying  falsely 
under  oath,  affirmation,  or  corroboration,  in  a 
court  of  law.  Had  these  police  captains  said 
the  things,  sworn  to  the  lies  in  court,  that  they 
told  out  of  court,  my  lawyer  would  have  had 
them  convicted  of  perjury  and  sent  to  state's 
prison.   This  is  a  pretty  good  reason,  and  this 

94 


is  the  only  reason  why  these  police  officials  did 
not  dare  to  contradict  me  under  oath. 

If  a  man  makes  a  statement  under  oath, 
realizing  the  consequences  of  making  a  false 
statement,  and  another  man  also  realizing  the 
gravity  of  an  oath,  says,  "I  do  not  object  to 
lying  a  little  out  of  court,  but  do  not  ask  me 
to  go  into  court  and  under  oath  swear  to  the 
lies  that  I  have  told  out  of  court,"  which  of 
the  two  is  worthy  of  belief? 

What  I  said  against  the  police,  I  said  in 
court  and  under  oath.  What  the  police  said 
against  me  was  said  out  of  court  and  not  under 
oath. 

When  I  charged  Captains  Donohue  and 
Price  with  attempted  extortion  it  was  in  an 
open  court  of  law.  The  oath  had  been  admin- 
istered, and  I  had  sworn  to  tell  the  truth,  the 
whole  truth,  and  nothing  but  the  truth;  and 
I  told  it.  And  what  did  they  have  to  say  for 
themselves?  What  did  they  do?  Take  the 
stand  and  deny  the  allegation?  No!  they  "tip- 
toed" their  way  out — quietly  sneaked — both 
of  them,  and  did  not  show  themselves  again  in 
that  court  room  until  my  trial  was  over. 

This  is  the  pith  of  the  whole  business.  I 
accused  them  of  this  crime  and  they  did  not 


95 


dare  to  take  the  stand  and  under  oath  say  that 
I  was  not  justified  in  so  accusing  them. 

I  quote  from  my  lawyer's  summing  up  ad- 
dress:— ["Donohue  will  have  his  character 
assailed;  will  be  charged  on  the  oath  of  Mr. 
Flagg  with  having  attempted  to  extort  a  bribe 
from  him,  and  that  is  the  last  we  see  of  Dono- 
hue. The  District  Attorney  closes  his  case, 
and  I  will  stop  my  case  right  here.  I  will  sur- 
render every  right,  every  privilege  that  I 
have,  and  agree,  if  the  District  Attorney  will 
call  Captain  Donohue  to  the  stand,  to  permit 
him  to  do  so."] 

But  neither  Donohue  or  the  District  Attor- 
ney considered  it  expedient  to  accept  this  offer. 
And  Price,  what  did  he  have  to  say  for  him- 
self? 

I  quote  from  my  lawyer's  summing  up  ad- 
dress:— ["Price  will  have  his  character  as- 
sailed, will  be  charged  on  the  oath  of  Mr. 
Flagg  with  having  attempted  to  extort  a  bribe 
from  him,  and  that  is  the  last  we  see  of  Mr. 
Captain  Price  in  his  full-buttoned  and  impos- 
ing uniform.  Mr.  Flagg  is  here,  but  the  con- 
spirators are  hidden  somewhere  afraid  to  face 
the  jury  that  they  have  impaneled  to  try  the 
crimes  that  they  have  imputed  to  Mr.  Flagg."] 

96 


The  witness  who  furnished  the  only  possible 
fact  upon  which  to  hinge  the  action  against 
me  was  an  aged  woman  who  lived  on  the  top 
floor  rear  of  a  tenement  house  located  on  West 
Nineteenth  street.  This  woman  complained 
that  some  of  my  West  Eighteenth  street  ten- 
ants went  on  the  roof  one  hot  night  in  the 
month  of  July,  1895,  and  disturbed  her  by 
singing  the  popular  ditty  entitled — "She  is  the 
Sunshine  of  Paradise  Alley."  Under  cross- 
examination  she  would  not  say  it  was  after 
midnight  when  the  notes  from  the  tuneful  re- 
frain first  reached  her  ears,  but  she  would 
swear  she  was  in  bed.  Barring  the  testimony 
of  this  one  witness  the  jury  disregarded  as  un- 
worthy of  belief  every  word  of  testimony  sub- 
mitted against  me.  And  when  twelve  presum- 
ably honest,  intelligent  and  disinterested  men 
patiently  listen  for  ten  long  days  and  evenings 
to  evidence  it  is  reasonable  to  presume  that 
they  are  better  qualified  to  render  a  correct 
verdict  than  those  who  base  their  opinion  on 
hearsay  evidence  or  newspaper  reports.  To 
say  that  these  men  failed  to  do  their  duty;  to 
say  I  am  guilty  anyway;  that  everyone  knows 
I  am  guilty  and  I  only  happened  to  crawl  out 
by  luck;  is  equivalent  to  saying  that  those  who 


97 


were  not  there,  who  heard  no  evidence  and 
saw  no  witnesses,  know  more  about  the  inside 
facts  than  those  who  were  there  and  who  heard 
and  saw  it  all. 

To  say  that  this  jury — the  twelve  men  there 
sitting — answerable  to  their  Maker,  men  who 
had  sworn,  each  of  them,  "So  help  me  God  I 
will  decide  this  case  upon  the  evidence,"  to 
say  they  did  not  do  so  when  they  brought  in  a 
verdict,  "Not  Guilty  of  renting  flats  to  be  used 
for  immoral  purposes  or  maintaining  disor- 
derly houses,"  is  equivalent  to  saying  that  each 
one  of  them  is  not  only  a  liar  but  a  perjurer. 
No  thoughtful,  conscientious  person  would 
make  such  a  remark.  Yet  flippant  individuals 
— the  idiotic  kind  who  know  it  all — have  re- 
peatedly made  this  assertion. 

"A  general  impression  prevails,"  they  say, 
but  "general  impressions"  are  not  evidence. 

The  District  Attorney,  in  his  opening 
speech,  and  before  a  witness  had  been  sworn, 
said  "A  general  impression  prevails,"  etc.,  etc., 
"but  I  am  going  to  submit  for  the  con- 
scientious consideration  of  the  jurors  some- 
thing more  material  than  general  impres- 
sions." And  then  placing  his  hand  on  a  stack 
of  clap-trap  legal  documents  more  than  a  foot 

98 


high,  said  [and  I  am  quoting  his  exact 
words]  : — "I  have  here  indisputable  evidence, 
and  am  prepared  to  prove,  and  moreover  will 
prove  by  it,  and  by  reputable  and  disinterested 
witnesses  that  the  defendant  is  guilty  of  every 
allegation  contained  in  the  indictments." 

He  made  this  assertion  to  create  or  intensify 
the  "general  impression,"  the  impression  that 
those  who  were  not  personally  acquainted 
with  me  then  held,  namely,  that  I  was  "a  bad 
man." 

But  a  few  days  later,  after  he  had  closed  his 
case;  after  he  had  submitted  his  evidence  for 
the  "conscientious  consideration"  of  the 
jurors ;  after  every  disreputable  and  interested 
witness  he  could  muster  had  been  sworn  and 
had  been  heard,  what  was  it  that  induced  the 
jury  to  ignore  his  alleged  "indisputable  evi- 
dence" and  "disinterested  witnesses,"  and  to 
throw  out  and  dismiss  twenty-four  of  the  twen- 
ty-five counts  contained  in  the  indictments? 

Let  those  wiseacres  answer  this  question  if 
they  can. 

The  jury  acquitted  me  of  the  charge  of 
keeping  disorderly  houses ;  of  knowingly  rent- 
ing my  flats  to  be  used  for  immoral  purposes; 
of  violating  the  excise  law  and  of  every  other 
charge  that  had  been  preferred  against  me, 


99 


with  the  exception  of  one — the  most  insignifi- 
cant count  of  all — that  which  charged  me  with 
maintaining  a  nuisance,  by  having  tenants  who 
made  a  noise,  and  disturbed  the  peace  of  the 
neighborhood,  and  this  upon  the  testimony  of 
the  old  woman  hereinbefore  referred  to.  On 
this  one  count  in  the  indictment,  and  there  was 
nothing  immoral  in  connection  with  it,  the 
jury  returned  a  verdict  of  "Guilty." 

When  the  proverbially  corrupt  conditions 
which  prevailed  at  the  time  of  my  trial  and 
which  to  this  day  prevail  are  taken  into  con- 
sideration, and  in  the  light  of  the  recent  Met- 
ropolitan Street  Railway  jury  balloting 
frauds,  if  such  a  verdict  was  not  a  vindication 
I  would  like  to  know  the  definition  of  the  word 
vindication. 

This  petty,  insignificant  misdemeanor,  this 
trivial  offense  for  which  any  owner  of  flat 
property  might  at  any  time  be  held  account- 
able, is  the  only  offense  for  which  I  was  ever 
adjudged  guilty.  Moreover,  it  is  the  only 
thing,  civil  or  criminal,  for  which  I  was 
ever  placed  on  trial,  and  yet  columns  have 
been  written,  written  by  men  who  were  paid 
because  they  could  write,  because  they  pos- 
sessed the  faculty  of  writing  sensationally.  To 
write  as  I  am  writing,  the  truth,  is  easy.  A 


IOO 


schoolboy,  with  the  facts  before  him,  could  re- 
cord the  truth,  but  to  artistically  distort  the 
truth  requires  talent.  The  newspaper  scribes 
who  have  featured  me  all  possessed  talent,  and 
as  a  result  of  their  aptitude  in  juggling  words, 
in  making  white  appear  black,  thousands  have 
not  only  been  led  to  talk  against  me,  but  to  be- 
lieve the  lies  these  gifted  writers  have  written. 
The  punctuation  of  a  sentence  can  alter  its 
meaning,  and  the  people  have  read  these  mis- 
leading sentences  and  have  talked;  talked  be- 
hind my  back  and  have  insinuated  and  in- 
timated and  suspected  and  surmised  and  pre- 
sumed and  assumed  and  asserted  and  declared 
that  the  innuendoes  which  have  been  heaped 
upon  me  were  true,  but  what  have  they 
proved?  Nothing!  Absolutely  nothing!  And 
what  is  more,  no  person,  living  or  dead,  ever 
has  proved  anything.  From  the  day  I 
was  born,  from  the  day  I  left  my  native  town 
— New  Haven — and  came  here,  to  New  York, 
to  earn  my  own  livelihood,  a  boy  of  fifteen, 
down  to  the  day  of  my  trial,  down  to  the  pres- 
ent day  (1909) ,  no  human  being  has  ever  been 
able  to  produce  a  scintilla  of  evidence  to  prove 
or  to  show,  or  even  tending  to  show,  that  I  was 
not,  and  am  not,  an  honest  man,  a  law-abiding 
man,  and  a  man  of  decent  moral  character. 


IOI 


CHAPTER  IV. 


NOT  long,  only  a  few  minutes,  after  the  ver- 
dict had  been  brought  in,  and  the  afternoon 
papers  issued  extras  proclaiming  "FLAGG 
GUILTY" — "My  God,  he's  guilty!"  certain 
people  said  as  they  rolled  up  their  eyes,  and 
spoke  in  stage  whispers.  But  guilty  of  what? 
is  the  question,  and  to  this  day  not  one  person 
in  a  thousand  can  answer  that  question.  The 
public  is  wholly  ignorant  of  the  circumstances 
surrounding  my  case.  Even  those,  that  is, 
some  of  those  who  should  have  made  it  their 
business  to  ascertain  the  truth  before  placing 
me  under  a  ban,  know  little  or  nothing  about 
the  matter.  There  are  two  sides  to  every  story, 
and  any  person  who  prides  himself  on  being 
just  should  not  give  credence  to  one  side  un- 
less familiar  with  the  other.  This  is  the  first 
time  that  the  other,  my  side,  has  appeared  in 
print.  But  do  not  imagine  that  I  am  posing 
as  a  martyr. 


102 


The  wrongs  endured  by  me  are  trivial  com- 
pared to  the  woes  of  some  others.  I  am  only 
one,  and  there  are  thousands.  There  is  not  a 
day  in  the  year  in  which  mistakes  do  not 
occur;  sometimes  intentionally,  sometimes  un- 
intentionally. In  the  name  of  law  and  justice 
unjust  acts  are  constantly  being  committed.  In 
the  name  and  under  the  head  of  news  false- 
hoods are  constantly  being  circulated.  Had 
the  press  informed  the  people  of  the  real 
offense  for  which  I  was  adjudged  guilty  I 
would  make  no  protest;  but  for  the  sake  of 
sensationalism,  which  means  circulation,  the 
truth  was  perverted  by  the  press. 

From  a  newspaper  editor's  standpoint  noth- 
ing succeeds  like  circulation,  and  what  do  these 
editors  care  for  me?  I  have  sued  half  the 
newspapers  in  the  City;  and  as  I  have  never 
instituted  a  libel  suit  without  provocation,  I 
have  never  lost  one.  Yet  whatever  cash  dam- 
ages I  have  received  or  may  receive  will  not 
obliterate  from  the  minds  of  the  persons  who 
have  read  the  false  articles  the  impressions 
which  they  have  formed.  Nothing  will  ap- 
pear in  the  newspapers  to  show  that  these 
articles  were  false  and  that  the  publishers  had 
to  pay  damages  for  publishing  them.  The 


103 


editors  of  these  papers  would  hardly  consider 
such  news  sufficiently  sensational  to  interest 
the  public.  At  the  present  time  I  have  libel 
suits  pending  against  the  New  York  Times, 
the  New  York  Sun,  the  Evening  World,  the 
Morning  Telegraph,  and  I  have  obtained  a 
judgment  against  the  New  York  Herald.  But 
it  is  not  alone  the  press;  I  have  other  damage 
suits.  Certain  persons  intrusted  by  the  people 
to  administer  the  law  impartially  have  been 
partial  in  their  treatment  of  me.  Yet  I  am 
told  that  they  "let  me  down  lightly" ;  I  did  not 
lose  my  life.  When  I  think  of  the  "police 
stool-pigeons"  and  the  powerful  and  corrupt 
police  influence  which  was  brought  to  bear 
against  me,  I  suppose  I  ought  to  be  thankful 
that  I  am  still  on  earth. 

It  would  be  interesting  to  me  if  some  per- 
son, who  could,  would  explain  why  they  took 
my  case,  a  paltry  misdemeanor,  to  the  General 
Sessions  Court;  a  tribunal  in  which  only  fel- 
ons and  murderers  are  tried.  The  court  rec- 
cords  show  that  no  person  accused  of  a  mis- 
demeanor of  the  character  of  which  I  was  ac- 
cused was  ever  tried  there  before  or  has  ever 
been  tried  there  since. 

What  kind  of  political  influence  enabled 


104 


them  to  block  the  wheels  of  this  great  temple 
of  justice  for  almost  a  fortnight,  while  the 
District  Attorneys  were  wrangling  with  my 
attorneys  over  the  morality  of  my  tenants? 

Why  was  it  that  the  judges  exacted  from  me 
bail  bonds  ten  times  as  large,  ten  times  as  great 
as  was  ever  known  to  have  been  exacted  from 
persons  charged  with  misdemeanors?  The 
court  records  show  that  the  District  Attorney 
and  his  assistants  argued  for  over  an  hour  in 
order  to  induce  Judge  Newberger  to  refuse  in 
my  case,  as  security  for  ten  thousand  dollars,  a 
bond  backed  by  an  equity  of  one  hundred  and 
twenty  thousand  dollars  on  improved  New 
York  City  property. 

I  quote  the  words  of  my  lawyer  when  ad- 
dressing the  District  Attorney  in  open  court: — 
["I  will  put  the  District  Attorney's  office  to 
the  challenge  that  there  is  not  a  man  indicted 
for  manslaughter  to-day,  who  is  on  the  records 
of  the  District  Attorney's  office,  whose  bail  ap- 
proximates that  amount."] 

Why  should  they  have  demanded  of  me  free 
and  clear  property  appraised  by  the  City  at 
ten  times  the  amount  of  the  bond  required? 
The  records  show  that  in  my  case  they  would 
not  accept  real  estate  at  its  intrinsic  value,  but 


105 


Stood  on  legal  technicalities  anci  would  only 
pass  property  when  its  officially  appraised  city 
value  exceeded  by  ten  the  bond  demanded. 
Why  should  they  discriminate  against  and 
make  an  exception  of  me?  The  penalty  in- 
flicted for  a  first  offense  is  usually  less  severe 
than  for  a  second.  Why  was  this  rule  not  ap- 
plicable in  my  case?  The  court  records  show 
that  the  extreme  penalty  ever  imposed  for  a 
similar  first  offense  (maintaining  a  nuisance) 
was  ten  days  or  ten  dollars ;  if  a  bum,  ten  days 
"on  the  Island";  if  a  gentleman,  a  ten-dollar 
fine  only.  But  see  what  they  did  to  me!  Does 
the  law  seek  to  persecute  or  degrade  a  person 
before  he  is  tried,  or  is  a  person  in  the  eyes  of 
the  law  to  be  regarded  as  innocent  until 
proven  guilty?  At  divers  times,  two  years  be- 
fore I  could  force  them  to  bring  my  case  to 
trial,  they  dragged  me  through  the  streets  like 
some  captured  outlaw.  I  was,  and  I  am,  a 
citizen  of  the  United  States.  I  was  charged 
with  an  offense  the  nature  of  which  was  not 
serious.  Had  I  been  adjudged  guilty  of  every 
count,  in  every  indictment  found  against  me,  I 
would  still  have  been  a  citizen  and  entitled  to 
all  the  rights  of  a  citizen. 

This  is  the  truth — this  is  the  law.  There- 

106 


fore,  is  there  a  law-abiding  person  in  the 
United  States  who  has  the  temerity  to  say  that 
he  approves  of  a  fellow-citizen  being  humili- 
acted  in  broad  daylight,  on  the  public  streets  as 
I  was?  Unless  you  approve  of  this  form  of 
police  persecution  you  should  not  decry  and 
help  to  bring  discredit  on  those  who  have  been 
subjected  to  it. 

The  people  as  a  whole  have  nothing  against 
me  and  it  was  the  will  of  the  people  that  I 
should  have  a  fair  trial ;  but  in  my  case,  as  in 
many  others,  it  so  happened  that  the  servants 
of  the  people  (the  police)  betrayed  the  con- 
fidence of  the  people  and  resorted  to  knavery 
and  trickery.  And  why?  Why  were  the  police 
so  bitterly  disposed  toward  me?  I  will  tell 
you.  It  was  because  I  would  not  be  cowed  by 
them  and  submit  to  their  blackmailing  de- 
mands; that's  why.  No  honorable  man,  inno- 
cent of  wrongdoing,  would  submit;  but  a  dis- 
honorable man,  guilty  of  wrongdoing,  would 
pay  "hush-money"  to  continue  an  unlawful 
business.  I  wouldn't,  because  my  business  was 
lawful ;  and  if  on  this  account  they,  the  police, 
with  the  help  of  the  newspapers,  succeeded  in 
blasting  my  reputation,  do  you  consider  it  just 
to  join  in  with  them  and  so  assist  in  keeping 


107 


me  down?  All  I  ask  is  fair  play;  give  your 
fellow-citizen  a  fair  chance;  do  not  "damn 
him"  without  knowing  why;  without  being 
able  to  give  a  reason  for  doing  so. 

From  first  to  last,  all  through,  from  begin- 
ning to  end,  even  unto  the  present  day,  I  have 
been  persecuted — not  prosecuted  in  an  open 
and  manly  way;  and  it  is  about  time  there 
should  be  a  "let  up." 

In  January  of  last  year,  1908, 1  leased  offices 
in  the  Century  Building,  1  West  Thirty-fourth 
street,  New  York  City,  but  before  paying  the 
rent  it  was  understood  with  the  landlord — Mr. 
Minturn  Post  Collins — and  in  the  presence  of 
three  witnesses,  Mr.  Edward  L.  Schiller,  Mr. 
Henry  A.  Jackson  and  Mr.  William  B.  Reed, 
Jr.,  that  on  the  first  day  of  May,  this  year,  I 
was  to  have  two  additional  offices  adjoining 
the  three  I  had  already  leased.  I  wanted  this 
put  in  writing,  but  was  assured  that  Mr.  Col- 
lins' word  was  as  good  as  his  bond.  Before  I 
had  been  in  his  building  many  hours,  or  days, 
as  the  case  may  be,  his  tenants,  or  quite  a  num- 
ber of  them  congregated  and  commenced  to 
"chew  the  rag,"  just  as  if  I  had  no  rights,  and 
should  not  be  permitted  to  occupy  offices  in 
that,  or  in  any  other  building,  and  engage  in 

108 


legitimate  business  for  the  purpose  of  making 
a  living.  These  behind-the-back  aspersions 
worried  my  partners.  Personally,  I  make  it  a 
point  not  to  worry  about  anything  if  by  any 
possibility  I  can  school  myself  against  it,  and  I 
attribute  my  good  health  to  the  fact  that  I 
rarely,  if  ever,  have  worried.  I  have  not  been 
sick  forty  minutes  in  forty  years;  that  is,  sick 
enough  to  be  in  bed.  Superstitious  persons  tell 
me  I  should  "knock  on  wood"  whenever  I 
make  this  assertion.  They  mean  well  but  fail  to 
comprehend  that  the  less  superstition  we  have 
the  nearer  civilized  we  are. 

Ailments  of  all  kinds  can  usually  be  traced 
to  carelessness,  abuse,  or  stupidity. 

There  would  be  less  stupidity  in  matters  re- 
lating to  health  were  it  not  considered  respect- 
able to  be  sick. 

For  thirty-five  years  I  have  lived  in  New 
York  City.  For  thirty  years  I  have  been  my 
own  master;  that  is,  have  worked  for  myself; 
and,  not  counting  a  trip  abroad,  partially  on 
business  and  partially  on  pleasure,  have  given 
myself  two  vacations — a  ten-  and  a  five-day 
outing.  It's  not  work  that  kills  us.  It's 
recreation.  Barring  these  fifteen  days  I  have 
not  missed  a  day  from  business  (when  in  busi- 

109 


ness)  in  all  these  years.  Is  this  fact  not  suf- 
ficient to  explode  the  assumption  that  I  am  a 
confirmed  rake?  Because  I  do  not  go  through 
life  with  a  despondent  and  care-worn  expres- 
sion on  my  face;  because  I  appreciate  good 
company  and  good  fellowship,  and  drink  in 
moderation,  is  that  evidence  that  I  am  a  liber- 
tine? I  am  not  ashamed  to  admit  that  I  enjoy 
life  and  the  good  things  in  it  to  the  utmost. 
There  are  but  few  days  in  my  life  that  I  would 
not  like  to  go  back  to  and  live  over. 

No  person  can  get  out  of  life  all  that  there 
is  in  it  if  he  takes  things  too  seriously,  if  he 
attaches  undue  importance  to  matters  that 
ought  to  be  regarded  as  trifles-  Sensitive  per- 
sons suffer.  We  should  be  philosophical  in 
all  things  and  under  all  circumstances,  and 
should  not  forget  that  cruel,  cutting  words 
usually  leave  a  deeper  wound  in  the  heart  of 
the  one  who  utters  them  than  in  the  heart  of 
the  one  to  whom  they  are  uttered. 

It  may  not  be  pleasant  to  be  vilified,  but  if 
it  affords  pleasure  to  others  let  them  "damn 
away."  I  do  not  like  it;  I  want  to  stop  it;  I 
am  going  to  stop  it  if  I  can ;  but  if  I  cannot  I 
am  not  going  to  fret  over  it.  I  do  not  propose 
to  dedicate — to  set  apart — my  life  to  worry. 

TTO 


This  is  what  I  said  to  my  partners,  at  i  West 
Thirty-fourth  street,  and  I  meant  every  word 
of  it.  I  also  told  them  that  life  was  too  short 
for  me  to  waste  my  time  in  giving  Collins  or 
his  tenants  a  history  of  my  life.  It  is  exhaust- 
ing to  have  to  keep  explaining  all  the  time  how 
good  I  am  and  how  wicked  and  unjust  others 
are.  I  am  sick  of  extolling  my  own  virtues, 
orally,  and  this  is  why  I  have  put  them  in  book 
form.  I  do  not  expect  that  the  book  will  in- 
terest the  general  public  and  have  a  sale.  I'm 
not  blackening  the  reputation  of  men  for 
money.  (I  am  not  a  newspaper  reporter.) 
This  is  not  the  purpose  of  the  book;  but  sale  or 
no  sale  it  is  going  to  save  me  an  awful  lot  of 
talking. 

In  the  future  whenever  I  am  introduced  to 
a  person  who  asks  me  if  my  first  name  is  Jared 
— I  shall  not  answer  him,  I  will  simply  hand 
him  a  copy  of  this  book  and  tell  him  to  take 
it  and  go  home.  After  he  has  digested  it,  I 
shall  tell  him  to  take  it  down  to  the  Criminal 
Courts  Building  and  compare  the  names,  dates, 
and  statements  that  it  contains  with  the  official 
records.  If  he  does  so  and  if  he  has  a  con- 
science it  will  smite  him,  and  he  will  come 
back  to  me  and  apologize.   I  may  present  Col- 


in 


lins  with  a  copy;  he  intimated  that  when  I 
signed  the  lease  he  did  not  know  that  J.  stood 
for  Jared,  but  his  tenants  would  not  have  it 
that  way;  that  was  too  much  for  them  to  swal- 
low; they  held  that  he  must  have  frequently 
seen  my  name  in  print;  and  it  was  the  unani- 
mous wish  of  the  majority  of  the  tenants  at  i 
West  Thirty-fourth  street  that  I  should  be  put 
out  of  the  building.  Whereupon  Minturn 
Post  Collins — the  man  whose  word  was  sup- 
posed to  be  as  good  as  his  bond — broke  his 
word  and  refused  to  rent  to  me  or  my  partners 
the  two  additional  offices,  as  he  had  previously 
agreed  to  do.  It  being  imperative  that  we 
should  have  more  office  space  we  were  put  to 
the  annoyance  and  expense  of  moving.  This 
was  a  small  matter,  but  it  illustrates  how  the 
thing  works;  how  for  years  I  have  been  han- 
dicapped; owing  to  the  papers  continually, 
even  now,  publishing  as  being  true  the  false 
charges  of  the  past. 

Some  persons  are  not  what  they  seem  and 
they  ought  to  be  glad  of  it.  Not  one  of  Mr. 
Collins'  tenants  knew  me  personally;  not  one 
of  them  would  have  said  a  word  prejudicial  to 
my  character  had  he  known  the  truth  concern- 
ing me;  yet  without  knowing,  without  having 


112 


heard  even  a  part  of  my  side  of  the  story,  they 
succeeded  in  making  Collins,  who  knew  even 
less  about  me,  believe  that  the  reputation  of  his 
building  would  be  ruined  if  he  did  not  con- 
trive in  some  way  to  induce  me  to  vacate. 

My  other  landlord,  Mr.  E.  C.  Sewall, — for 
seventeen  years  the  Treasurer  of  the  Pond's 
Extract  Company — who  knew  all  about  me 
(I  having  occupied  offices  in  his  building  on 
Fifth  avenue  for  eleven  years,  he  also  having 
an  office  in  the  same  building) ,  thought  well 
enough  of  me  to  shift  several  of  his  tenants 
around,  in  order  to  accommodate  me  with  six 
additional  adjoining  offices,  when  I  left  Mr. 
Collins'  building. 

Mr.  Collins  did  not  keep  faith  with  me, 
simply  because  some  of  his  tenants  had  seen  my 
name  in  print. 

And  it  is  owing  to  the  fact  that  so  many 
have  seen  my  name  in  print;  have  read  the 
malicious  misrepresentations,  misleading  and 
false  accounts  in  the  newspapers;  have  heard 
of  the  uncalled  for  and  unlawful  public  acts 
of  persecution  by  the  police  and  other  public 
officials ;  that  they  have  formed  an  unfavorable 
opinion  of  me. 

As  an  example  of  the  injustice  visited  upon 

113 


me  and  of  the  discriminating  enforcement  of 
the  law,  take  the  case  of  Police  Captain  James 
K.  Price  and  compare  it  with  my  own.  I  took 
the  stand  in  my  own  defense;  I  laid  my  life 
bare;  I  was  acquitted  of  every  charge  pertain- 
ing to  dishonesty  or  immorality ;  but  was  found 
guilty  of  a  petty  misdemeanor  (maintaining  a 
nuisance),  and  immediately  thereafter,  on  the 
strength  of  this  finding,  Captain  Price  (with  a 
record  so  black  that  even  the  thought  of  taking 
the  stand  in  his  own  defense  and  having  his  past 
life  investigated  was  enough  to  make  him  run 
like  a  "whipped  cur")  was  acquitted  of  the 
charge  of  felony. 

The  moment  I  was  convicted  (of  maintain- 
ing a  nuisance)  the  indictment  against  Price 
was  dismissed;  and  he  was  not  only  reinstated, 
but  assigned  to  a  precinct  and  placed  in  a  posi- 
tion where  he  could,  with  impunity,  under  the 
protection  and  in  the  name  of  the  law,  per- 
secute the  man  who  had  dared  to  accuse  him, 
in  open  court,  while  under  oath  upon  the  stand, 
and  to  his  face,  of  attempted  blackmail.  And, 
be  it  said  to  his  everlasting  shame,  he  was  not 
dilatory  in  availing  himself  of  the  opportunity. 

Clothe  a  desperado  with  police  power  and 
you  have  a  daredevil  that  no  freebooter  in  the 


114 


country  can  rival.  He  will  draw  the  line  at 
nothing;  he  will  put  up  any  job;  will  swear 
away  any  person's  liberty  or  life  to  settle  a 
grudge.  Price  had  a  grudge  against  me  and 
with  all  the  swaggering  bravado  and  foul- 
mouthed  insolence  of  the  average  Tammany 
Hall  police  captain  vowed  that  he  would  have 
satisfaction. 

Now  it  appears  that  out  of  the  wreck  I  had 
saved  one  piece  of  property,  consisting  of  two 
flat  buildings  located  on  West  Thirty-third 
street,  near  Broadway.  I  held  a  forty- two 
year  ground  lease  on  this  property.  It  was 
claimed  by  Price  that  one  of  my  tenants  living 
in  the  building,  known  as  109,  had  invited 
some  friends  to  have  a  sociable  game  of  cards. 
He  further  claimed  that  a  dispute  arose  and 
one  of  the  invited  guests  stabbed  another  in- 
vited guest  in  the  stomach  with  a  hat  pin.  The 
visitor,  supposed  to  have  been  punctured  in  the 
abdomen,  could  not  be  found.  The  alleged 
stabber  could  be  found  but  was  not  arrested. 
The  hat  pin  was  alleged  by  Price  to  be  the 
property  of  the  wife  of  the  lessee  of  the  flat, 
both  of  whom  put  in  a  general  denial.  But  I, 
who  was  not  on  the  premises  at  the  time  the 
game  was  alleged  to  have  been  played,  was, 


"5 


without  a  charge  having  been  preferred  or  a 

warrant  issued,  arrested  by  Price  and  held 
without  bonds  for  examination  on  the  ground 
that  I  was  an  accessory  before  the  fact;  in 
other  words,  implicated  in  what  might  prove 
to  be  murder. 

I  had  never  posed  as  a  saint,  but  this  imputa- 
tion, murder  in  any  degree,  was  a  little  too 
much.  It  was  the  "straw  that  broke  the  camel's 
back;"  and  although  Price  was  reprimanded 
by  the  Judge  and  the  case  thrown  out  of  court, 
I  then  and  there  "threw  up  the  sponge ;"  threw 
away  my  forty-two  year  ground  lease  (which 
has  since  sold  at  an  advance  over  the  price 
which  it  had  cost  me  of  one  hundred  thousand 
dollars  )  and  quit  the  flat  business  a  bankrupt. 

Tell  a  person  you  are  a  failure  and  he  will 
believe  you;  lose  your  nerve  and  you  are 
doomed.  I  did  not  feel  like  admitting  that  I 
was  a  failure,  yet  I  had  a  lurking  idea  that  I 
was  not  what  might  be  termed  a  blooming  suc- 
cess. I  felt  like  taking  the  "rest  cure,"  and  for 
a  year  or  two  I  did  nothing  and  made  little  or 
no  attempt  to  do  anything.  The  thought  of 
seeking  a  clerical  position  did  not  enter  my 
head.  Years  ago,  when  a  boy,  I  had  been  em- 
ployed for  five  years  by  Frank  Work,  the 

116 


multi-millionaire  Wall  street  speculator,  to 
keep  his  purchases  and  sales  book.  But,  since 
the  age  of  twenty,  I  had  not  worked  on  a  sal- 
ary;  and,  money  or  no  money,  had  no  intention 
of  being  a  clerk. 

When  a  person  ceases  to  try,  ceases  to  strug- 
gle, life  becomes  a  struggle,  and  these  were  try- 
ing times  for  me.  Every  bit  of  my  former  en- 
thusiasm seemed  to  be  knocked  out  of  me,  and 
when  a  person  loses  his  enthusiam  he  loses  his 
opportunities;  and  yet  I  kept  alive,  lived  for  a 
year  or  two  without  knowing  how  I  lived. 
Then  things,  instead  of  getting  better,  got 
worse;  and  I  existed,  for  a  year  or  two,  with- 
out knowing  how  I  existed. 

Had  any  member  of  my  family,  at  that  time, 
known  the  position  in  which  I  was  placed,  he 
or  she  would  have  come  to  my  rescue.  But  as 
I  felt  that  I  had  no  one  to  blame  but  myself  I 
kept  to  myself.  In  making  this  statement  I  am 
not  exonerating  the  police  or  the  newspapers, 
but  the  members  of  my  family  and  my 
friends.  I  had  friends,  but  they  were  few  and 
far  between  and  growing  beautifully  less  day 
by  day.  Friends  will  stick  "tighter  than  glue" 
to  a  rich  man,  but  if  a  person's  resources  are 
circumscribed  it  behooves  him  to  keep  making 

in 


new  friends  all  the  time,  otherwise  in  a  short 
time  he  will  find  himself  sitting  high  and  dry 
without  a  friend  in  the  world. 

In  1898  I  found  myself  sitting  in  a  small 
room  on  the  top  floor  of  a  building  that  could 
not  be  called  modern.  I  had  a  few  callers,  not 
counting  creditors,  and  one  of  these  callers  was 
named  George  D.  Smith.  Smith  is  not  an  as- 
sumed title  taken  for  this  occasion.  Smith  was 
his  name,  and  Smith  was  a  friend,  and  is  to  this 
day.  Smith  would  work  for  a  salary  when  he 
could  get  it.  When  he  could  not  he  would 
work  without  it,  and  it  was  due  to  this  noble 
trait  in  his  character  that  he  worked  for  me  so 
many  years. 

He  was  with  me  when  I  was  up  in  the  world, 
and  he  was  with  me  when  I  was  down  in  the 
world;  he  was  with  me  when  I  was  a  creditor; 
when  I  was  a  debtor,  and  when  hundreds  of  my 
creditors  were  howling  around  me  like  raven- 
ous wolves ;  he  was  with  me  when  I  ascended 
from  the  depths  of  poverty;  and  he  was  with 
me  when  I  descended  to  the  depths  of  poverty ; 
he  was  with  me  when  I  dined  at  Delmonico's ; 
when  I  dined  at  the  Dairy  Kitchen;  and  when 
I  dined  on  a  loaf  of  bread;  but  through  it  all, 

118 


in  fair  weather  and  in  foul,  he  was  always  the 
same — cheerful  and  considerate. 

The  first  day  he  walked  into  my  top  story 
room  he  was  considerate — he  had  a  loaf  of 
bread  under  his  arm — he  did  not  know 
whether  I  had  dined,  and  during  our  repast 
the  following  conversation  took  place: 

"What  do  they  tax  you  for  this  place?" 
asked  Smith. 

"Ten  dollars,"  said  I. 

"Not  a  week?" 

"No— a  month." 

"And  how  long  have  you  been  here?" 
"Almost  a  month." 

"Did  you  have  to  pay  any  money  on  account 
of  the  rent  before  taking  possession?" 
"Paid  all." 

"All?  In  advance?"  asked  Smith. 

"We  are  not  all  gifted,"  said  I.  "You  are 
the  only  person  with  whom  I  am  acquainted 
possessing  the  faculty  of  residing  in  this  town 
without  paying  rent." 

"I  pay  when  I  can;  when  I  can't  I  do  the 
next  best  thing — move — you  know  how  I  am 
situated,"  said  Smith. 

"Yes,  we're  both  in  the  same  boat,  and  on 
the  first  of  the  month  I  may  move.  Tom,  the 


119 


colored  watchman,  tells  me  the  landlord  is 

going  to  ask  me  to  vacate." 

"And  pray  why?  You  paid  one  month's 
rent,"  said  Smith.  "You  must  have  a  queer 
landlord  if  he  is  afraid  to  trust  you  for  the 
next  three  months." 

"That's  not  it,"  I  answered.  "It's  not  a 
question  of  money  but  of  respectability." 

Then  I  explained  how  several  of  my  former 
tenants,  with  whom  Smith  was  acquainted, 
had,  hearing  that  I  was  in  hard  luck,  called, 
not  to  ask  if  there  was  something  they  might  do 
for  me;  but  to  do  something — to  actually  offer 
me  money.  Until  then  I  did  not  appreciate  the 
fact  that  there  was  so  much  goodness  in  the 
world.  And  I  continued  while  Smith  listened: 
"Some  of  his,  the  landlord's,  straight-laced  ten- 
ants, probably  having  read  and  believed  with- 
out knowing,  took  it  for  granted  that  my  cal- 
lers were  crooked.  They  probably  INTIMATED. 
Neighbors  like  to  intimate  things,  and  one  old 
fossil,  occupying  an  office  on  the  floor  below, 
INTIMATED  that  I  was  fond  of  the  women." 

"Fond  of  the  women,"  soliloquized  Smith, 
"and  a  man  who  is  not  fond  of  them  is  no  man, 
or  he  is  a  man  with  a  diseased  mind.  Must  you 
live  the  life  of  a  hermit?   Have  you  no  right 


120 


to  receive  callers?  Suppose  you  were  doing 
business  here  and  had  customers,  callers,  would 
your  landlord  object?" 

"Perhaps  not,"  I  replied. 

"Well  then,"  said  Smith,  "why  not  tell  him 
that  you  are  doing  business?  Why  not  call 
yourself  a  real-estate,  or  a  theatrical  agent.  A 
theatrical  agent  must  have  callers ;  no  callers, 
no  business;  no  business,  no  rent." 

"A  theatrical  agent!"  It  was  a  happy 
thought,  and  I  decided  to  be  one,  or  at  all 
events  to  call  myself  one. 

"And,"  said  Smith,  "if  I  meet  any  of  our  old 
friends,  dramatically  disposed,  I  will  send 
them  up.  I  will  tell  them  you  are  a  theatrical 
agent." 

"Do  it,"  said  I.  "I'm  sick  of  idleness;  we 
will  rig  up  a  sign.  What  will  a  modest  little 
tin  one  cost?" 

"Fifty  cents  or  a  dollar,  and  I  know  a  sign 
painter  who  will  trust  us,"  said  Smith.  "You 
know  the  fellow  who  made  your  large  Twenty- 
third  street  sign.  He  got  his  money — two  hun- 
dred and  twenty-five  dollars — and  I  told  you, 
at  the  time,  it  was  extortion ;  but  you  handed 
over  a  check  without  a  word,  and  I  rather 


121 


guess  that  fellow  would  be  only  too  pleased  to 
paint  any  sign  you  might  order." 

The  next  day  a  tin  sign  was  tacked  on  the 
jamb  of  my  room  door  in  such  a  manner  as 
to  project  out  in  the  hall.  It  was  not  a  pre- 
tentious sign — simply  J.  Flagg,  Theatrical 
Agent — but  it  was  hardly  up  before  the  land- 
lord came  up.  Any  one  with  half  an  eye  could 
see  that  he  was  agitated,  and  to  aggravate  mat- 
ters just  at  this  crucial  moment  I  could  see 
Smith's  smiling  countenance  coming  down  the 
long  hall  followed  by  three  young  women,  all 
crazy  to  go  on  the  stage.  Some  think  a  person 
must  be  crazy  to  want  to  go  on  the  stage. 

Out  of  deference  to  their  presence,  as  Smith 
and  his  clients  took  possession  of  my  office,  the 
landlord  requested  me  to  step  into  the  hall,  and 
forthwith  proceeded  to  lay  down  the  law  in  a 
subdued  but  determined  voice. 

"A  theatrical  agent!  I  would  not  have  one 
in  my  building — not  at  double  the  rent.  I  did 
not  know  you  were  one."  And  I  could  not  tell 
him  I  did  not  know  it  myself.  There  was  the 
sign  and  there  were  the  would-be  chorus  girls ; 
but  I  assured  him  my  business  was  limited,  and 
this  in  a  measure  produced  a  soothing  effect  on 
his  nerves.  I  spoke  the  truth,  my  business  was 


122 


certainly  limited.  I  had  none  and  knew  no 
more  about  the  theatrical  business  than  the 
man  in  the  moon,  and  my  colleague — Smith — 
knew  less.  Therefore,  had  Smith  not  been 
a  truly  remarkable  borrower,  as  well 
as  a  wonderful  financier,  it  is  doubtful  if 
the  rent  would  ever  have  been  paid;  but  as 
it  was  we  managed  to  "hang  on,"  after  a 
fashion,  while  three  months  were  rolling  by. 

One  day,  when  entering  the  building,  I  met 
our  landlord  going  out,  and  he  enquired  how 
business  was.  It  was  quiet,  and  he  remarked 
encouragingly  that  "your  season  will  soon  be 
opening;  Spring  is  coming  on  and  managers 
will  then  be  engaging  people  for  their  Fall 
productions." 

I  acquiesced,  although  this  was  news  to  me, 
and  I  lost  no  time  in  imparting  the  information 
to  Smith.  "If,"  said  I,  "the  season  is  about  to 
open  and  if  I  am  a  theatrical  agent,  why  not  be 
one?"  You  never  get  anywhere  if  you  do  not 
start,  and  I  sent  Smith  out  to  discover,  if  pos- 
sible, how  the  business  was  conducted.  He  re- 
ported that  it  was  a  knotty  proposition.  The 
theatrical  agents  of  this  city  were  organized ; 
it  took  money  to  join  their  union.  I  was  not  a 
member,  and  if  I  were  it  would  do  me  no 


"3 


good;  most  of  the  agents  had  been  established 
for  years,  and  were  personally  acquainted  with 
the  managers.  When  an  agent  procured 
"talent"  for  a  manager  he  exacted  a  commis- 
sion equal  to  one-half  of  one  week's  salary.  The 
custom  was  for  the  manager  to  deduct  this 
amount  from  the  second  week's  salary  and  re- 
mit to  the  agent.  Certain  managers  were 
friendly  with  certain  agents ;  they  were  clan- 
nish and  an  outsider  would  stand  a  poor  chance 
of  "butting  in." 

Nevertheless,  I  decided  to  "butt,"  and  in- 
serted an  advertisement  in  a  newspaper,  which 
read  as  follows:  "Attractive  young  women 
wanted  for  light  opera  chorus,"  etc.,  etc. 

In  response  to  this  advertisement  the  first 
few  callers  did  not  seem  sufficiently  attractive 
in  appearance  for  stage  work,  and  I  passed 
them  out,  but  the  third  advertisement  brought 
a  living  picture — lima  Salter.  As  Smith 
later  remarked,  this  young  woman  was  so  en- 
trancing he  almost  fell  over  in  a  trance  when 
he  saw  her.  It  was  the  ambition  of  her  life  to 
go  on  the  stage,  she  said.  And  we  said,  "If  we 
cannot  put  you  on  we  had  better  retire  from 
business."  "But  I  cannot  sing,"  she  added,  and 


124 


I  told  her  "not  to  let  a  little  thing  like  that 
worry  her.  If  the  manager  to  whom  I  propose 
giving  you  a  letter  of  introduction  knows  his 
business  he  will  engage  you  whether  you  know 
how  to  sing  or  not."  This  was  said  with  the 
assurance  of  one  who  does  not  know  what  he 
is  talking  about.  Yet  I  had  an  idea  that  the- 
atrical managers  were  often  brought  in  touch 
with  the  human  side  of  life  and  must  therefore 
be  human.  I  felt  that  any  one  of  them,  if  in  his 
power  to  do  so,  would,  without  preaching  a 
sermon,  extend  a  helping  hand  to  this  seven- 
teen-year-old girl  who  was  "striking  out"  in 
the  world  for  herself,  and  who  was  my  first 
real  stage  applicant;  that  is,  the  first  I  accepted 
with  the  intention  of  endeavoring  to  place  on 
the  stage. 

In  those  days  I  was  not  only  personally  un- 
acquainted with  the  theatrical  managers,  but 
did  not  even  know  their  names.  I  was  aware, 
however,  that  there  was  a  man  named  Oscar 
Hammerstein  who  owned  a  few  theatres,  and 
without  knowing  how  he  might  take  it,  gave 
Miss  Salter  a  letter  of  introduction  to  him,  in 
which  I  assured  him  that  any  attention  shown 
the  young  woman  would  be  appreciated  by  me. 
"You  tell  him  that  Mr.  Flagg  sent  you  up,"  I 

125 


said;  "give  him  this  letter  and  then  come  back 
and  report  to  me." 

Both  Smith  and  myself  were  curious  to 
know  what  the  outcome  would  be,  and  we 
waited  and  waited,  the  hours  rolled  by,  but  the 
young  woman  did  not  return.  It  was  eleven 
a.  m.  when  she  left  our  office.  Smith  had  been 
out  and  returned  and  advised  me  to  "forget  it." 
"We  shall  never  see  her  again,"  he  said.  But 
just  then  we  heard  the  rustling  of  a  woman's 
skirt  coming  down  the  hall,  apparently  in  a 
hurry,  and  the  next  moment  she  burst  into  our 
office  like  a  ray  of  sunshine,  with  face  all  aglow 
and  eyes  sparkling.  Before  we  could  offer  her 
a  chair  she  had  dropped  into  one.  "I  am  en- 
gaged," she  exclaimed,  "engaged!  oh!  I  can- 
not believe  it — it  seems  like  a  dream,  but  here 
is  the  contract — forty  weeks — all  costumes  fur- 
nished— nothing  to  buy.  Oh!  I'm  so  happy; 
this  is  the  happiest  day  of  my  life."  And  then 
her  eyes  became  moist,  she  smiled,  she  laughed, 
she  put  her  handkerchief  to  her  eyes,  she  strug- 
gled to  keep  the  tears  back,  but  there  was  no 
stopping  them,  and  she  cried  for  joy.  This  joy 
was  so  infectious  that  even  Smith  felt  con- 
strained to  blow  his  nose.  "Calm  yourself,  my 
child ;  wipe  your  eyes  and  tell  us  all  about  it," 

126 


I  said.  "In  the  first  place,  what  detained  you 
so  long?"  "I  know  I  promised  to  come 
straight  back,  but  I  had  to  go  home — I  could 
not  help  it — I  could  not  wait,  I  wanted  to  tell 
Mother." 

"Is  your  father  living?"  I  asked. 

"No." 

"Have  you  any  brothers?" 
"A  little  one." 

"And  you  live  with  your  mother  and  little 
brother?" 

"Yes,"  she  said,  "and  eighteen  dollars  a 
week!  Look!  There  it  is  typewritten  in  the 
agreement;  that  is  to  be  my  salary — eighteen 
dollars!  And  it  means  so  much,  so  much  to 
us";  and  again  the  tears  commenced  to  "well 
up"  in  her  beautiful,  but  inflamed  eyes. 

No  man  likes  to  see  a  woman  cry,  and  with- 
out intending  to  be  harsh,  I  commanded  her  to 
stop  it,  and  "get  down  to  business"  and  tell  us 
how  she  did  it. 

"You  did  it,"  she  said,  "you  gave  me  the 
letter — it  was  owing  to  your  influence  with 
Mr.  Hammerstein  that  I  was  accepted." 

Smith  looked  at  me  and  I  looked  at  Smith, 
neither  of  us  smiled.  "Well  now  tell  us.  You 


127 


first  went  to  the  stage  door  of  the  Victoria 
Theatre?" 
"Yes." 

"And  told  the  man  at  the  door  that  you 
wished  to  see  Mr.  Hammerstein?" 

"Yes,  that  I  had  a  letter  and  the  man  asked 
me  where  I  got  it.  I  told  him  that  it  was  a 
letter  of  introduction  to  Mr.  Hammerstein, 
signed  by  Mr.  Flagg,  the  Theatrical  Agent." 

"But  that  man  does  not  know  me." 

"He  seemed  to;  soon  as  I  mentioned  your 
name,  he  said  that  was  all  right  and  I  could 
go  in." 

"And  you  went  in?" 

"Yes,  the  doorkeeper  pointed  to  a  man  at 
work  on  the  stage  and  told  me  to  go  over  and 
give  him  the  letter — that  he  was  Mr.  Ham- 
merstein. It  was  so  dark  I  could  hardly  see — 
coming  in  from  the  sunlight — but  I  walked 
over  and  saw  a  man  in  his  shirt  sleeves,  on  his 
knees,  at  work  cutting  a  hole  in  the  stage.  I 
supposed  he  was  some  carpenter  and  asked  him 
if  he  could  tell  me  where  I  could  find  Mr. 
Hammerstein.  He  said  I  was  talking  to  him. 
I  thought  it  strange  that  Mr.  Hammerstein 
should  have  on  overalls,  and  asked  if  he  was 
Mr.  Oscar  Hammerstein.     He  said  he  was 


128 


sorry  to  say  that  that  was  his  name,  and  he  kept 
right  on  working.    I  waited  until  he  had 
finished  sawing  a  board  and  then  when  he 
looked  up  I  gave  him  your  letter." 
"Did  he  read  it?" 

"Why,  of  course,  and  he  told  me  to  follow 
him.  We  walked  past  the  boxes  down  into  the 
orchestra  and  up  an  aisle  to  his  private  office." 

"And?" 

"He  asked  me  if  I  had  ever  been  on  the  stage 
and  I  told  him  I  never  had." 

"That  was  a  mistake,"  ejaculated  Smith. 

No.  Had  Miss  lima  attempted  to  mislead 
him  he  would  have  tripped  her  up  in  a  minute. 
She  was  not  talking  to  a  fool.  He  would 
have  wanted  to  know,  when,  where,  and  with 
whom. 

"He  inquired  if  I  could  sing  and  I  said  no; 
then  he  asked  me  if  I  could  dance  and  I  said 
no." 

"And  what  then?" 

"Then  he  gave  me  a  letter  and  told  me  if  I 
did  not  procure  an  engagement  to  drop  in  and 
see  him  next  week.  The  letter  was  addressed 
to  Mr.  Witmark." 

"Witmark!  What  Witmark?" 


129 


"The  Witmark  Musical  Library  and 
Agency." 

"What  did  Mr.  Witmark  say  to  you?" 

"He  asked  me  if  I  could  sing,  and  I  told  him 
I  could  not." 

"Why  did  you  say  that? — "  said  Smith. 

"Why  do  you  interrupt?"  said  I;  and  Miss 
lima  proceeded  to  tell  us  how  Mr.  Witmark 
had  given  her  a  card  to  Mr.  Ashland. 

"Ashland!  What  Ashland?" 

"Mr.  W.  Ashland — manager  of  the  Wit- 
mark Agency." 

"And  what  did  he  have  to  say?" 

"He  wanted  to  know  if  I  was  an  alto  or  a 
contralto  or  a  soprano,  and  I  told  him  I  wasn't 
anything." 

"And  what  then?" 

"Then  he  thought  I  might  answer  the  pur- 
pose and  he  gave  me  a  letter  to  Mr.  Aborn." 

"Aborn!  What  Aborn?" 

"The  Aborn  Opera  Company." 

"And  what  did  he  want?" 

"He  wanted  to  know  what  I  could  do." 

"And  when  you  told  him  you  couldn't  do 
anything?" 

"He  signed  the  contract — there  is  his  name 
— and  Wednesday  I  am  to  begin  rehearsing  at 


130 


ffie  Herald  Square  Theatre.  Isn't  it  grand? 
j  ust  think  of  it!  I  can  hardly  wait  for  the  day 
to  come.  How  shall  I  ever  repay  you  for  your 
kindness?  To-morrow  Mother  is  coming 
down  to  see  you — to  thank  you — to  arrange 
matters — to  pay  you." 

"Do  not  talk  about  pay;  we  are  indebted  to 
you ;  you  have  taught  us  more  about  the  busi- 
ness than  we  ever  knew  before." 

"Yes — damn  the  pay,"  said  Smith.  "These 
names  and  these  addresses  are  worth  money  to 
us.  We  should  pay  you,  not  you  us ;"  and  then, 
apprehensive  lest  I  should  think  him  too  lib- 
eral, without  making  it  clear  to  lima,  he  gave 
me  to  understand  that  he  had,  when  out,  earlier 
in  the  afternoon  effected  an  extension  of  credit 
with  the  groceryman,  and  we  were  now  on 
"easy  street"  for  at  least  two  days  to  come. 

lima  Salter  was  the  first  person  ever  placed 
by  me,  directly  or  indirectly,  on  the  stage;  and 
as  I  look  now  at  her  picture,  which  she  signed 
and  gave  to  me  with  her  best  wishes  years  ago, 
it  takes  me  back  to  the  old  tin  sign,  the  little 
old  dingy  office  looking  out  on  the  air  shaft, 
and  the  loaf  of  bread. 

This  was  one  case;  I  could  cite  hundreds — 
yes,  thousands — some  less,  some  more  pathetic;  ' 

131 


I  could  fill  volumes ;  I  could  write  and  I  could 
tell  of  successes  and  of  failures,  of  hopes 
blasted  and  of  hopes  realized;  I  could  mention 
names  now  known  on  both  sides  of  the  water, 
which  were  unheard  of  when  first  entered  on 
my  books.  I  have  placed  young  women  and 
young  men  on  the  stage  who  have  raised  them- 
selves and  those  dear  to  them  from  want  to 
affluence;  but  these  were  the  exceptions;  the 
majority  only  made  a  living,  yet  were  none  the 
less  grateful ;  and  I  can  show  many,  many  let- 
ters, sincere,  honest,  letters  of  heartfelt  grat- 
itude, which  any  man  might  feel  proud  to  own. 
Therefore,  if  you  believe  that  happiness  con- 
sists in  making  others  happy,  you  can  under- 
stand how  happy  I  was  during  the  years  in 
which  I  was  engaged  in  the  Theatrical  Agency 
business.  They  were  the  six  happiest  years  of 
my  life. 


132 


CHAPTER  V 


THE  next  day  Mrs.  Salter  and  her  daughter 
called  to  adjust  what  they  believed  was  their 
indebtedness  to  me.  I  explained  it  was  the 
Witmark  Agency  that  had  procured  the  en- 
gagement, and  that  Mr.  Witmark  would  ex- 
pect a  commission;  half  of  Miss  Ilma's  second 
week's  salary;  but  that  it  would  not  be  pay- 
able until  the  second  week's  salary  had  actu- 
ally been  earned  and  paid.  Although  Mrs. 
Salter  agreed  that  this  was  proper,  yet  she 
thought  I  also  should  be  compensated,  as  it 
was  due  to  my  personal  influence  with  Mr. 
Hammerstein  that  lima  had  met  with  success. 
"He  was  so  very  considerate  to  my  daughter 
after  reading  your  note  of  introduction,"  she 
said.  But  I  explained  that  Mr.  Hammerstein 
did  not  know  me;  would  not  know  me  if  he 
should  meet  me  face  to  face.  Furthermore,  I 
informed  her  that  I  did  not  know  Mr.  Wit- 


133 


mark,  or  Mr.  Ashland,  or  Mr.  Aborn;  never 
had  heard  of  them  until  Miss  lima  enlightened 
me. 

This  appeared  to  stagger  her,  but  neverthe- 
less she  was  insistent  and  left  a  five-dollar  bill 
on  my  desk.  It  seemed  a  shame  to  take  the 
money. 

The  next  best  thing  to  making  money  is  to 
think  that  you  are  going  to,  and  after  this  little 
episode,  both  Smith  and  myself  were  sure  that 
there  was  money  in  the  business.  Three  months 
later  we  were  not  so  sanguine.  The  season  for 
engaging  stage  people  had  opened  and  closed, 
and  our  gross  receipts,  including  the  five  dol- 
lars previously  referred  to,  had  only  amounted 
to  fifteen  dollars.  This  was  pretty  "poor  pick- 
ing;" we  both  looked  pretty  seedy;  it  seemed 
like  a  forlorn  hope;  seemed  as  if  we  could  not 
hold  out  another  day,  and  yet  we  struggled  on ; 
I  kept  working  and  Smith  kept  borrowing. 
After  six  months  of  this  "hand-to-mouth"  busi- 
ness we  decided  to  drop  the  price  from  five  to 
two  dollars,  and  our  receipts  quadrupled.  This 
was  not  saying  much,  but  it  enabled  us  to  come 
a  little  nearer  to  making  ends  meet. 

Occasionally,  some  actor  out  of  a  job  would 
drop  in  and  quote  Shakespeare  to  us;  and 


134 


owing  to  our  forbearance,  our  ability  to  listen, 
and  also  to  the  fact  that  we  invariably  ex- 
pressed admiration,  we  became  more  or  less 
popular  with  these  tragedians,  and  they  did  us 
many  a  good  turn.  Not  that  we  could  bor- 
row from  them;  we  did  not  make  the  attempt, 
for  it  is  well  known  in  the  Profession  that  a 
tragedian  seldom,  if  ever,  eats.  But  through 
them  we  attained  an  insight  into  the  business 
which  was  of  ultimate  value  to  us.  They  edu- 
cated us,  kept  us  posted,  and  "put  us  wise"  on 
many  points.  Through  them  we  discovered 
that  the  Witmarks  were  not  only  one  of  the 
most  reliable  agencies  in  the  city,  but  the 
largest.  We  also  discovered  that  Mr.  Ash- 
land, who  for  years  has  had  charge  of  the  Wit- 
mark's  agency  department,  was  universally 
liked.  Nothing  seemed  to  ruffle  him,  not  even 
when  we  sent  him  an  applicant  unfitted  for  the 
stage.  If,  after  trying  her  voice  he  found  it  to 
be  impossible,  he  had  the  knack  of  passing  her 
out  without  offending  her,  and  even  such  ap- 
plicants invariably  spoke  of  him  in  the  high- 
est terms.  This  made  it  easy  for  us ;  it  enabled 
us  to  transact  what  little  business  we  did  with- 
out friction,  without  any  unpleasantness. 
"Why  do  you  not  go  up  and  pay  your  re- 


135 


spects  to  Mr.  Ashland?"  Smith  would  say  to 
me.  And  I  would  say  to  Smith,  "What's  the 
use?  He  is  doing  all  right,  placing  eight  out 
of  every  ten  we  send  up;  why  not  let  well 
enough  alone?"  And  so  the  seasons  rolled  by 
until  a  new  spring  season  opened.  Then  busi- 
ness "picked  up"  a  little ;  we  were  eating  better 
and  felt  better;  we  even  went  so  far  as  to  in- 
quire the  cost  of  having  a  telephone  placed  in 
our  office. 

It  was  just  about  this  time  that  Mr.  Ashland 
wrote  a  letter  in  which  he  requested  me  not  to 
send  stage  applicants  to  him  after  four  p.  m., 
as  he  was  always  busy  attending  to  his  cor- 
respondence between  the  hours  of  four  and  six 
o'clock.  This  letter  proved  valuable;  it  was 
prima  facie  evidence  that  we  now  had  a  real 
connection  with  a  real  theatrical  firm.  It  was 
typewritten  on  a  Witmark  Musical  Library 
and  Agency  letter  head,  and  to  preserve  it  I 
had  it  framed. 

We  could  now  say  to  our  customers,  "Pay  us 
our  fee —  two  dollars  cash  in  advance — and  if 
you  are  not  satisfied  with  the  position  come 
back  and  we  will  refund  to  you  your  money." 
"But,"  we  would  add,  "there  is  not  much  like- 
lihood of  our  being  obliged  to  do  this,  as  you 

136 


can  see  by  this  letter  we  are  transacting  busi- 
ness with  the  leading  theatrical  agency  of  the 
city."  Then  the  framed  letter  would  be  handed 
to  the  applicant  to  peruse.  It  worked  won- 
ders; it  was  a  turning  point  in  our  business — 
this  Ashland  letter — and  one  week  after  re- 
ceiving it  I  signed  a  contract  with  the  tele- 
phone trust. 

It  was  a  great  day  for  us,  the  day  the  tele- 
phone was  installed  in  our  office.  Not  that  we, 
at  this  time,  had  any  special  use  for  the  thing, 
but  others  found  it  a  convenience. 

Some  persons  as  soon  as  they  see  a  telephone, 
provided  it  is  not  in  a  public  pay  station,  want 
to  use  it.  There  are  a  great  many  telephone 
beggars  in  the  world. 

Three  years  passed.  Mr.  Ashland  did  not 
come  to  my  office,  nor  did  I  go  to  his.  We  had 
never  met,  but  he  knew  my  voice  and  I  knew 
his  when  talking  over  the  telephone.  We  had 
gradually,  without  contemplating  it,  almost 
without  knowing  it,  drifted  into  one  of  those 
mutually  advantageous  arrangements  which 
often  prove  more  lasting  and  more  profitable 
than  a  cast-iron  signed  contract. 

One  day  Mr.  Palmer  of  the  Tarns  Agency 
called,  and  said  he  could  use  a  few  young 


137 


women  with  good  voices.  This  was  a  new  con- 
nection. A  tragedian — a  friend  of  ours — had 
informed  Mr.  Palmer  that  when  it  came  to 
chorus  singers  we  were  headquarters.  Then 
other  agents  called,  and  a  still  greater  outlet 
opened  to  us.  To  meet  this  increased  demand,' 
I  not  only  increased  my  New  York  City  ad- 
vertisements but  also  advertised  in  other  large 
cities.  Finally,  as  by  degrees  it  became  "noised 
about"  that  we  could  supply  the  demand,  we 
found  ourselves  doing  business  with  all  the 
agents  in  the  city;  all  the  members  (without 
an  exception)  of  the  theatrical  agents'  union. 

And  so  our  business  prospered,  up,  up,  up, 
doubling  itself  each  year  several  times  over. 
Many  an  air  castle  eventually  has  been  erected 
on  solid  ground  and  we  had  come  up  on  a 
solid  foundation.  Our  business  had  made  its 
own  capital,  and,  instead  of  boards,  at  the  ex- 
piration of  the  first  year  we  found  ourselves 
walking  on  ingrain  carpet.  At  the  end  of  the 
second  year  tapestry  Brussels;  at  the  end  of 
the  third  year  Wilton  velvet;  and  at  the  end  of 
the  fourth  year  the  trouble  had  commenced. 
It  is  said  that  women  are  the  cause  of  all  the 
trouble  in  the  world,  and  it  was  our  young 
women  clients  who  brought  on  the  trouble. 


138 


Up  to  this  time  our  business  had  been  con- 
fined to  the  theatrical  agents.  We  had  not 
dealt  with,  and  therefore  were  not  known  to, 
theatrical  managers.  When  an  agent  received 
an  order  from  a  manager  for  chorus  singers  he, 
the  agent,  would  simply  order  us  to  send  to  his 
office  one  or  fifty  or  a  hundred,  as  the  case 
might  be.  It  was  no  trouble  to  him;  he  was 
put  to  no  expense  in  advertising,  and  he  did  not 
have  to  pay  us  any  part  of  his  commissions. 

It  was  true  applicants  who  registered  with 
us  were  obliged  to  pay,  in  addition  to  the 
agent's  fee  of  one-half  of  the  second  week's 
salary,  our  two-dollar  registration  fee.  But 
as  we  kept  in  touch  with  every  theatrical  agent 
in  the  city,  we  knew  just  when  and  where  to 
send  our  clients.  Therefore,  we  could  not  only 
save  them  time,  but  a  vast  amount  of  tramp- 
ing about,  and  as  "time  is  money"  the  young 
women  and  the  young  men  considered  it  econ- 
omy to  pay  this  extra  two-dollar  registration 
fee  to  us. 

The  regular  theatrical  agents,  all  along,  had 
been  careful  not  to  let  the  theatrical  managers 
know  that  the  chorus  singers  they  were  engag- 
ing through  them  (the  agents)  were  in  reality 
my  clients — that  is,  had  passed  through  my 


139 


office  and  registered  before  being  sent  by  me 
to  the  agents. 

Naturally,  the  agents  were  not  averse  to  re- 
ceiving the  glory,  the  prestige  of  seemingly 
having  so  large  a  clientele  as  to  be  able  to  fill 
any  sized  order  without  undue  delay.  At  this 
time  I  was  expending  money  freely  in  the 
newspapers,  and  it  was  these  newspaper  ad- 
vertisements that  brought  the  people  to  me, 
and  thus  enabled  me  to  execute  promptly  the 
orders  I  received  from  the  agents  and,  in  turn, 
enabled  the  agents  to  execute  promptly  the 
orders  they  received  from  the  managers.  So 
long  as  this  state  of  affairs  existed,  continued, 
the  theatrical  agents  were  my  friends,  and  why 
should  they  not  be?  They  were  making  money 
out  of  me;  my  clients  were  paying  them  ten 
dollars  while  my  clients  were  paying  me  two, 
and  yet  more  than  half  of  my  receipts  were  go- 
ing back  into  the  newspapers,  whereas  the 
agents,  owing  to  their  friendly  business  rela- 
tions with  me,  were  not  obliged  to  expend  one 
dollar  in  advertising.  Furthermore,  the  agents 
demanded  from  my  clients  (as  was  their  cus- 
tom with  all  stage  people)  an  additional  fee 
for  each  engagement  procured,  but  I  only  ex- 
acted one  two-dollar  registration  fee  per  year. 


T40 


For  this  one  and  only  fee  I  obligated  myself  to 
procure,  directly  or  indirectly,  any  number  of 
stage  engagements  that  my  clients  might  de- 
sire during  the  year. 

This  charge  was  so  moderate  that  without 
solicitation  on  my  part  the  majority  of  my 
clients,  as  my  books  show,  returned  year  after 
year  to  do  business  with  me  and  renew  their 
registration  fee.  It  was  owing  to  these  con- 
tinued renewals  that  I  could  see  a  prosperous 
future  opening  up  before  me,  and  I  was  there- 
fore content  to  "bide  my  time,"  even  if  the 
theatrical  agents  did  regard  me  as  a  conveni- 
ence. It  was  because  I  was  such  a  "good 
thing,"  such  a  valuable  asset  to  them,  that  they 
kept  my  name  under  cover,  and  so  kept 
the  theatrical  managers  from  discovering  the 
true  source  from  which  the  supply  came.  But 
the  young  women  (my  clients)  finally  "let  the 
cat  out  of  the  bag,"  and  then,  as  previously 
stated,  at  the  end  of  the  fourth  year,  the  trouble 
commenced. 

It  happened  this  way:  Before  a  company 
goes  on  the  road  the  agents  through  whom  the 
people  in  the  company  have  been  engaged  are 
permitted  to  attend  the  final  dress  rehearsal, 
and  at  its  completion  the  chorus  is  lined  up  on 


141 


the  stage,  and  the  manager  and  his  bookkeeper 
and  the  theatrical  agents  go  together  down  the 
line  and  check  off  the  names.  This  is  done  to 
avoid  errors  in  remitting  commissions  to  the 
agents.  If  an  agent  claims  that  he  procured 
the  engagement  for  a  certain  person,  and  that 
certain  person  disputes  the  claim,  the  matter  is 
adjusted  there  and  then.  But  if  no  dispute 
arises  the  person  who  obtained  the  engagement 
signs  an  order  authorizing  the  manager,  the 
employer,  to  deduct  half  of  the  second  week's 
salary  and  remit  same  to  the  agent  entitled  to 
receive  it. 

To  go  down  the  line  of  a  large  chorus  and 
identify  the  right  one,  or  the  right  dozen,  is 
no  easy  task.  A  brunette  on  the  street  might  be 
a  chemical  blonde  on  the  stage,  and  a  chestnut 
brown  might  be  a  red-headed  Titian.  How- 
ever, despite  the  makeups,  were  all  the  young 
women  truthful  it  would  not  be  so  difficult  to 
identify  them.  But  unfortunately  some  women 
are  given  to  exaggeration  (except  when  talking 
of  their  own  age)  and  some  of  these  chorus 
girls  would  "stretch  the  truth"  and  pretend 
not  to  know  their  own  names.  They  would 
give  the  agent  one  name  and  the  manager  an- 
other— a  stage  name — and  at  the  last  moment 


T42 


"spring"  still  another,  a  new  name,  on  both,  by 
exchanging  names  with  each  other;  anything, 
in  fact,  to  mix  matters  and  swindle  the  agent 
out  of  his  commissions. 

It  was  during  the  "line  ups,"  at  the  begin- 
ning of  the  fall  season,  after  I  had  been  in  busi- 
ness four  years,  that  my  name  was  suddenly 
brought  to  the  attention  of  the  leading  man- 
agers in  New  York  City.  I  would  receive  a 
telephone  order  from  an  agent;  I  might  be 
talking  at  the  time,  in  my  private  office,  to  a 
young  woman ;  forty  or  fifty  more  might  be  in 
the  waiting  room.  I  would  send  the  young 
woman  up  to  the  agent  and  tell  the  office  boy 
to  pass  the  others  in  to  me,  one  at  a  time,  in- 
tending to  send  each  one  to  the  agent,  but  he — 
the  boy — would  inform  me  that  they  had  all 
left;  just  gone;  gone  with  the  young  woman  I 
had  sent  to  the  agent.  But  they  had  no  inten- 
tion of  calling  on  the  agent.  Oh,  no !  they  were 
going  to  call  on  the  manager,  and  so  evade  pay- 
ing the  agent  a  commission.  One  was  enough 
to  pay,  and  after  she  had  called  on  the  agent 
and  ascertained  when  and  where  to  go  she 
would  post  the  others.  In  this  unfair  way  the 
agent,  instead  of  making  commissions  on  forty 
or  fifty,  would  make  commissions  on  only  one. 


143 


It  was  a  "mean  trick"  for  them  to  play  on  the 
agent,  and  I  tried  in  every  way  to  prevent  it 
from  being  played  on  other  agents  with  whom 
I  was  doing  business,  for  I  knew  it  would  ulti- 
mately result  in  trouble  all  around;  but  I  was 
unsuccessful  in  my  efforts ;  I  was  outwitted  at 
every  turn.  There  might  be  only  two  or  three 
young  women  in  my  office  when  an  order  came 
in,  and  I  would  send  them  up,  and  thirty 
minutes  later  the  agent  would  "phone"  to  me 
that  only  one  had  called,  but  that  there  were  a 
hundred  or  more  at  the  theatre  and  that  this 
kind  of  business  must  stop.  They  were  my 
clients.  I  could  not  deny  that  fact,  but  how 
they  were  "tipped  off;"  how  they  reached  the 
theatre  in  such  a  short  space  of  time  was  an 
enigma  to  me.  Still  I  could  not  make  the 
agent  believe  this  and  I  was  blamed  accord- 
ingly. Seemingly,  I  had  not  acted  in  good 
faith.  It  looked  as  if  I  was  winking  at,  or  de- 
liberately joining  in  with,  my  clients  to  dupe 
the  agents;  to  deprive,  to  prevent  them  from 
making  commissions.  And  as  a  result  of  this 
underhand  business  on  the  part  of  many  of  my 
clients,  when  it  came  to  the  final  "line  up," 
roll  call,  not  merely  in  one  theatre,  but  in  all 
the  leading  theatres  and  rehearsal  halls  of  the 


144 


city,  I  found  myself  placed  in  an  awkward 
position. 

The  fact  that  I  was  disgusted,  not  alone  with 
certain  tricky  clients,  but  with  young  women 
who  were  not  from  my  office,  whom  I  did  not 
know,  and  yet  claimed  to  be  clients  of  mine, 
did  not  help  matters. 

It  did  not  help  the  agents;  it  simply  made  it 
look  so  much  worse,  and  the  agents  stood  by, 
inwardly  berating  me,  while  they  heard  my 
name  called  out  all  along  down  the  line. 

A  manager,  or  his  bookkeeper,  would  say 

to  Miss  "Whom  do  you  belong  to; 

which  agent  sent  you  to  us?" 

"Mr.  Flagg."  * 

"Flagg?  We  do  not  know  him;  never  heard 
of  any  such  agent." 

"Well,  Mr.  Flagg  is  my  agent  and  he  sent 
me." 

"And  you?" 

"Mr.  Flagg." 

"What!" 

"Yes.   Mr.  Flagg,  he's  my  agent,  also." 

"And  you?" 

"Mr.  Flagg." 

"How  is  it  with  you?" 

"Mr.  Flagg." 


145 


"And  is  Flagg  your  agent,  too?" 

"Yes,  sir." 

"And  yours?" 

"Yes,  sir." 

"And  yours?" 

"Yes,  sir." 

"Well,  who  the  blankety  blank  blank  is 
Flagg,  anyway?  We  gave  him  no  orders,  and 
we  will  pay  him  no  commission." 

"Mr.  Flagg  does  not  want  any  commission." 

"What!" 

"He  only  charges  two  dollars  a  year,  and 
we  have  paid  him;  we  can  have  all  the  stage 
engagements  we  want." 

This  was  news  to  the  managers,  and  they 
commenced  to  have  visions ;  commenced  to  put 
two  and  two  together;  commenced  to  realize 
that  for  some  time  back  they  had  been  employ- 
ing my  people,  although  engaging  them 
through  the  agents.  It  was  now  clear;  they 
could  see  it  all,  and  henceforth  they  would 
deal  with  me  direct;  they  would  cut  out  the 
middleman — the  agent — and  so  save  the  money 
that  had  heretofore  each  year  been  paid  to  the 
agents. 

Subsequently,  every  large  grand  opera  and 
light  comic  opera  manager  in  New  York  City 

146 


commenced  to  do  business  with  me.  This  is 
a  sweeping  assertion,  and  yet  I  bar  none;  I  in- 
clude them  all,  and  can  show  signed  orders  re- 
ceived from  them  all. 

Therefore,  it  can  be  seen  that  I  had  UNIN- 
TENTIONALLY CURTAILED  THE  INCOME  which 
the  agents  had  formerly  received  and  counted 
upon  to  help  meet  current  and  living  expenses. 

I  had  no  patent  on  my  way  of  doing  business. 
Any  person  so  inclined  could  have  adopted  the 
same  method,  only  it  might  have  proved  a 
trifle  discouraging  to  him  at  the  beginning,  as 
it  did  to  me.  Perhaps  even  more  so,  as  he 
would  have  to  compete  against  me,  whereas, 
when  I  started,  I  had  no  one  to  compete 
against.  I  did  not  try  to  compete  with  the 
theatrical  agents.  I  simply  created,  as  it  were, 
a  business  for  myself,  along  lines  offering  the 
least  resistance,  and  I  called  my  business,  my 
establishment,  a  theatrical  bureau  of  informa- 
tion. There  never  had  been  such  a  bureau 
and  there  may  never  be  another. 

When  the  theatrical  agents  of  New  York 
City  became  apprehensive  as  to  what  might 
happen  to  them,  they  set  about  to  rectify  what 
they  were  pleased  to  term  an  evil.  First  they 
called  a  meeting  of  the  members  of  their 


147 


Union;  a  committee  of  four  was  appointed  to 
call  on  me  and,  if  possible,  to  induce  me  to  join 
their  Union.  These  men  were  courteous  and 
placed  the  matter  before  me  in  every  conceiv- 
able light.  They  cross-questioned  me  and  ascer- 
tained that  my  advertising  bills  were  large; 
over  two  hundred  dollars  a  week;  and  that, 
owing  to  this  expense,  and  the  additional  ex- 
pense of  circularizing  the  country,  my  net 
profits,  compared  to  the  magnitude  of  my  busi- 
ness, were  trivial.  They  asked  me  if  it  was  my 
desire  to  play  the  part  of  "dog  in  the  manger," 
and  other  pointed  questions  equally  difficult 
and  disagreeable  to  answer. 

I  pleaded  for  time.  Let  me  "sleep  on  it" 
over  night;  and  to-morrow,  I  said,  I  will  give 
you  my  answer;  I  will  tell  you  if  I  will  join 
your  Union. 

That  evening  at  dinner  I  talked  the  matter 
over  with  Smith,  and  we  both  felt  that  there 
was  a  storm  brewing.  We  could  feel  it  in  the 
air.  "If  we  do  not  tie  up  with  these  agents 
there  is  going  to  be  trouble."  "And  if  we  do, 
what  then?  inquired  Smith.  "We  are 
doomed,"  said  I.  "The  day  we  join  their 
Union  we  are  ruined;  the  moment  we  change 
our  method  of  doing  business  we  shall  have  no 


148 


business.  But,  if  we  continue  on  the  lines  we 
have  adopted,  we  shall  soon  have  it  all ;  we  are 
the  fashion;  they  are  coming  our  way;  but,  if 
we  charge  as  much  as  the  others  charge,  they 
will  go  the  other  way." 

Smith  agreed  with  me,  and  the  next  day  I 
sent  a  letter  of  thanks  to  the  agents  for  the 
honor  they  had  conferred  in  asking  me  to  join 
their  Mutual  Protective  Association,  but  I 
declined  to  do  so. 

A  few  weeks  later,  and  ugly  rumors  com- 
menced to  float  through  the  air.  I  heard 
"things";  my  friends  heard  ''things."  But  the 
"things"  that  they  had  heard,  and  the  "things" 
that  I  had  heard,  the  others  (those  who  spread 
the  reports)  had  heard  from  others  who  also 
claimed  to  have  heard.  It  was  all  hearsay, 
and  it  seemed  as  if  I  never  should  discover 
the  originators.  But  these  things  all  "come 
out  in  the  wash."  It  is  only  necessary  to  keep/ 
calm  and  to  wait,  and  some  time,  some  one  will 
say  something,  and  you  will  know  it  all.  I 
remained  calm  and  waited  almost  three  years, 
and  I  now  know  it  all — the  guilty  and  the 
innocent. 

To  display  enterprise  and  compete  honor- 
ably is  commendable,  but  to  resort  to  sneaking, 
anonymous  methods  to  "down"  a  competitor 


149 


is  contemptible.  In  my  opinion  any  man  who 
.will  resort  to  an  anonymous  communication 
in  order  to  kill  the  reputation  of  another  per- 
son is  an  assassin — as  much  of  an  assassin  as 
the  coward  who  sneaks  up  from  behind,  with 
a  dagger,  and  stabs  a  man  to  death  in  the  back. 

By  attending  to  my  own  affairs,  I  had  built 
up  a  business  that  threatened  the  very  existence 
of  certain  theatrical  agents.  At  least,  certain 
ones  believed  such  to  be  the  case,  but  this  did 
not  justify  them  in  circulating  dastardly  lies 
about  me.  I  do  not,  and  did  not,  accuse  all  the 
members  of  the  Agents'  Union.  I  refrained 
from  accusing  anyone  until  all  the  facts  had 
been  placed  before  me,  and  I  then  became  con- 
vinced that  some  of  the  agents  were  honorable 
men,  but  I  regret  to  say  I  discovered  that  some 
were  devoid  of  all  honor.  It  seems  unbeliev- 
able that  men,  however  exasperated,  could 
resort  to  the  despicable  acts  that  were  per- 
petrated on  me.  In  one  day  over  thirty  com- 
plaining, anonymous  letters  were  sent  to  edi- 
tors of  the  newspapers  in  which  I  advertised. 
These  letters  were  written  with  a  view  of  cut- 
ting off  my  source  of  supply  by  having  my 
advertisements  stopped.  If  rejected,  I  could 
not  advertise  for  stage  applicants ;  and  my  ad- 

150 


vertisements,  owing  to  these  letters  teeming 
with  false  statements,  were  rejected. 

But  letter  writing  is  a  game  that  two  can 
play  at,  and  I  decided  to  try  my  hand;  I  de- 
cided to  send  a  little  missive  to  the  editors  who 
had  received  the  anonymous  communications. 
It  did  not  take  me  long  to  write  it,  and  the  fol- 
lowing is  a  copy: 

New  York,  1905. 

Business  Manager: 

Dear  Sir — If  the  circulation  of  your  paper 
was  doubtful,  I  would  not  trouble  to  write  this 
letter;  but  I  know  from  experience  it  is  a  valu- 
able advertising  medium;  important  to  the 
welfare  of  my  business,  and  I  trust,  therefore, 
you  will  give  this  letter  consideration. 

For  a  long  time  I  have  advertised  in  your 
paper,  but  a  few  months  ago  was  warned  by 
certain  persons  (and  if  you  wish,  will  send  you 
their  names  and  addresses,  but  not  for  publica- 
tion) that  my  advertisements  would  be  rejected 
not  only  by  you,  but  by  other  managers  of  pa- 
pers throughout  the  country.  This  warning 
proved  true,  still  I  believe  when  you  are  ac- 
quainted with  the  facts  I  shall  be  reinstated. 
They  are  as  follows: — September  9th,  1904,  I 
received  a  letter  from  the  Theatrical  Agents' 

151 


Protective  Association  of  New  York  City,  re- 
questing me  to  be  present  at  a  meeting  of  their 
society,  which  was  to  be  held  at  the  Gilsey 
House  the  following  Tuesday  at  8  p.  m.,  in 
parlor  number  eleven,  I  paid  no  attention  to 
this  invitation,  and  a  few  days  later  received 
another  communication,  of  which  the  follow- 
ing is  a  copy: 

The  Co-operative  Mutual  Theatrical 
Protective  Association 

JAS.  J.  ARMSTRONG        ARTHUR  W.  TAMS  WM.  MORRIS 

Pres.                                   Sec'y  Treas. 

10  Union  Square              109  West  28th  St.  43  West  28th  St. 
Robert  Grau  J 
Mrs.  Beaumont  Packard  >  Vice-Presidents 
Henry  Wolfsohn  » 

New  York,  Sept.  17,  1904. 
Jared  Flagg,  Esq. 

Dear  Sir — A  meeting  of  the  members  of  the 
Theatrical  Protective  Association  will  be  held 
in  Elks'  Hall,  Majestic  Theatre  Building, 
Fifty-ninth  street,  next  Tuesday  evening  at  8 
o'clock.  We  would  be  pleased  to  have  you 
present  and  receive  the  benefit  of  your  counsel. 
Yours  truly, 

[Signed]         ARTHUR  W.  TAMS,  Sec'y. 

I  thanked  them  for  their  courtesy,  but  did 
not  attend  the  meeting. 


152 


The  same  month,  September  28th,  Hein- 
rich  Conried  notified  me  by  letter  that  he 
would  try  voices  and  hear  my  clients  sing  at 
3  p.  m.  the  following  Wednesday  in  the  Met- 
ropolitan Opera  House. 

To  prove  that  I  received  this  order,  I  can 
show  Mr.  Conried's  letter.  To  prove  that  I 
was  unable  to  fill  the  order  I  can  produce  one 
hundred  witnesses — young  women  who  were 
"afraid  to  risk  it"  "Risk  what?"  I  asked.  "Be- 
ing arrested,"  they  said.  "For  what?"  said  I. 
"For  being  your  clients,"  I  was  told.  And 
then  I  discovered  that  my  clients  were  being 
summoned  to  appear  before  the  District  Attor- 
ney. Two  had  been  taken  from  the  New  York 
Theatre;  three  from  their  homes  in  Brooklyn; 
two  from  in  front  of  my  office,  etc.,  etc.  Some 
person  or  persons  (probably  under  the  impres- 
sion it  was  a  duty  they  owed  to  themselves — 
not  to  me)  had  informed  the  District  Attorney 
that  I  was  sending  people  to  improper  persons. 
But  the  District  Attorney  (in  justice  to  me), 
before  taking  action,  appointed  Assistant  Dis- 
trict Attorney  C.  W.  Appleton  to  investigate 
the  matter.  I  also  did  a  little  investigating, 
and,  although  my  clients  had  been  warned  by 
Mr.  Appleton  not  to  talk  (women  will  talk) 


153 


I  soon  ascertained  who  were  the  instigators  of 
this  outrage. 

I  employed  detectives;  we  examined  wit- 
nesses ;  affidavits  were  made  and  one  member 
after  another  of  the  Co-operative  Mutual 
Theatrical  Agents'  Protective  Association  be- 
came implicated.  Depositions  to  prove  this 
statement  are  now  in  the  hands  of  my  attor- 
neys, Caruth,  Ziegler  &  Caruth.  Having  ac- 
cumulated this  evidence  I  appealed  as  a  law- 
abiding  citizen  to  the  District  Attorney  for 
protection,  and  as  soon  as  the  facts  were  placed 
before  him  he  accorded  me  protection.  This  I 
can  prove  by  a  letter  dated  October  7,  1904,  ad- 
dressed to  me  and  signed  personally  by  Wil- 
liam Travers  Jerome.  I  can  also  prove  it  by 
his  acts,  which  speak  louder  than  words. 
Months  have  elapsed  and  the  fact  that  District 
Attorney  Jerome  has  acted  toward  me  as  he 
would  to  any  other  reputable  citizen  is  evi- 
dence he  had  no  occasion  to  act  otherwise. 

The  President  of  this  Protective  Association 
and  certain  of  its  members  failing  therefore  in 
their  attempt  to  inveigle  the  District  Attorney 
into  co-operating  with  them  and  utilizing  his 
office  for  their  mutual  benefit,  and  incidentally 
my  injury,  concocted  another  scheme,  namely: 


154 


to  cut  off  my  source  of  supply  (newspaper  ad- 
vertisements) and  some  boasted  openly  and  at 
their  subsequent  secret  meetings  that  they 
would  put  me  out  of  business  by  having  my  ad- 
vertisements stopped.  Four  reputable  wit- 
nesses, members  of  established  theatrical  firms, 
admit  that  these  threats  were  made  and  will  so 
testify. 

To  stop  my  legitimate  advertisements,  ille- 
gitimate complaints  were  sent  to  city  and 
country  papers,  and  as  a  result  many  advertise- 
ments, including  those  which  were  to  have  ap- 
peared in  your  paper,  have  been  sent  back 
marked  "declined."  These  advertisements  and 
the  officially  dated  envelopes  in  which  they 
were  returned  I  have,  and  can  place  in  evi- 
dence to  prove  that  thirty  or  more  complaints 
were  made  in  five  different  states  at  the  same 
time — New  York,  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania, 
Connecticut  and  Massachusetts. 

Why  were  these  preconcerted  complaints 
sent  out?  Why  are  certain  members  of  the 
Agents'  Protective  Association  so  anxious  to 
end  my  career  as  a  theatrical  agent?  What  is 
their  motive?  Are  they  impelled  by  a  desire 
to  do  good?  Are  they  actuated  by  high  prin- 
ciples or  high  commissions? 


155 


The  regulation  fee  charged  for  procuring  a 
stage  engagement  is  one-half  the  second  week's 
salary.  My  charges  are  less,  but  at  times,  if  I 
have  no  orders,  I  recommend  to  my  clients 
agents  who  have  orders.  A  few  years  ago, 
when  I  embarked  in  this  business,  I  was 
obliged  to  send  them  all  to  agents  for  the  ob- 
vious reason  that  no  manager  would  favor  me 
with  an  order.  Did  the  agents  complain  of  me 
then?  So  long  as  I  was  willing  to  do  the  work, 
and  defray  the  cost  of  advertising,  and  pass 
my  clients  over,  and  allow  the  agents  to  charge 
them  the  regulation  rates,  my  morality  was  not 
questioned. 

There  is  no  theatrical  agency  in  this  city  who 
has  not  voluntarily  or  involuntarily  placed 
clients  of  mine  on  the  stage.  The  very  men 
who  are  now  denouncing  me  have  made  com- 
missions that  they  would  not  have  made  had  it 
not  been  for  me  and  my  clients.  If  any  mem- 
ber of  the  Agents'  Association  doubts  this  state- 
ment I  can  refresh  his  memory  by  referring  to 
my  books  and  submitting  a  list  of  the  clients  he 
has  placed  for  me. 

Their  Secretary  alone  has  procured  engage- 
ments for  over  eighteen  hundred  of  my  clients. 
All  its  members  are  not  against  me,  and  noth- 

156 


ing  herein  stated  is  intended  to  reflect  on  the 
Tarns  Agency  or  Mr.  F.  C.  Palmer,  of  this 
agency,  who  has  invariably  treated  me  and  my 
clients  with  respect.  The  same  is  true  of  Mr. 
W.  Ashland,  of  the  agency  department  of  the 
Witmark  Music  Library.  This  firm  has 
secured  stage  engagements  for  more  than  three 
thousand  five  hundred  of  my  clients ;  and  the 
many  courtesies  extended  by  the  Witmarks 
and  Mr.  Ashland  have  been  appreciated  by 
my  clients  and  by  me.  We  are  also  indebted 
to  Walter  J.  Plimmer,  Frank  Melville,  Matt 
Grau,  Frank  Forrester  and  some  others  who 
have  not  and  would  not  stoop  to  underhand 
competition. 

It  took  time,  but  when  by  degrees  it  com- 
menced to  dawn  on  the  theatrical  managers 
that  they  were  employing  my  people,  although 
engaging  them  indirectly,  that  is,  from  the 
agents  to  whom  I  had  referred  my  clients,  I 
commenced  to  receive  orders  direct.  Klaw  & 
Erlanger,  Frohman,  Conried,  Savage,  Bel- 
asco,  Shubert,  Hammerstein,  Thompson, 
Dundy,  Brady,  Aborn,  Fisher,  Ryley,  Harris, 
Hyde,  Behman,  Hill,  Bradhurst,  Currie,  Ade, 
Ziegfeld,  Liebler,  Keith,  Proctor,  Field, 
Lederer,  Whitney  and  Frank  L.  Perley  not 


157 


only  have,  but  are  at  the  present  time  employ- 
ing clients  of  mine.  I  can  produce  books,  let- 
ters, contracts  and  thousands  of  witnesses  to 
prove  this  statement. 

The  person  does  not  live  who  can  name  a 
first-class  light  opera  company  in  the  United 
States  (and  this  means  from  the  Atlantic  to 
the  Pacific)  in  which  my  clients  do  not  at  the 
present  time  take  part.  I  mention  these  facts 
not  because  I  wish  to  brag,  but  to  show  if  some 
of  the  agents  do  not  approve  of  my  modern 
methods  of  doing  business,  the  members  of  the 
Profession  seem  to  think  pretty  well  of  my 
work  as  an  agent. 

For  procuring  a  client  an  engagement  and 
keeping  him  or  her  at  work  one  entire  year 
I  charge  two  dollars.  All  told  I  have  over 
seven  thousand  yearly  clients,  and  this  low 
commission  is  pleasing  to  them,  agreeable  to 
the  managers,  and  satisfactory  to  me.  But  the 
agents  object.  They  want  protection.  They 
have  organized  a  society  (eighty-eight  in  num- 
ber) for  mutual  protection  and  they  want  it. 
They  want  you,  and  every  business  manager  of 
every  newspaper  in  every  city  and  town  within 
a  radius  of  five  hundred  miles,  to  co-operate 
and  aid  them  in  protecting  themselves  against 

158 


my  competition.  Previously,  that  is,  before  I 
did  business  with  the  foremost  managers  in  the 
theatrical  world,  it  was  all  right  but  now  it  is 
all  wrong — they  say — for  you  to  permit  my  ad- 
vertisements to  appear  in  the  columns  of  your 
paper.  If  you  continue  to  do  so  the  members 
of  the  profession  will  continue  to  patronize  me 
and  in  the  estimation  of  many  of  the  members 
of  the  Agents'  Protective  Association  this  is 
cruel  to  them. 

The  agents  do  not  support  the  members  of 
the  Profession,  the  members  of  the  Profession 
support  the  agents;  and  if  the  agents  compris- 
ing the  Protective  Association  are  to  be  de- 
prived from  making  the  high  commission 
which  according  to  the  By-Laws  of  their  own 
society  they  are  entitled  to  make,  who  is  going 
to  support  them?  This  is  the  problem,  and 
regular  and  special  meetings  have  been  called 
to  solve  it.  They  have  even  invited  me  to  give 
them  the  benefit  of  my  counsel,  as  per  the  en- 
closed copy,  hereinbefore  referred  to,  of  the 
Association's  letter  addressed  to  me,  and  dated 
September  17th,  1904. 

But  I  maintain  that  the  young  women  need 
the  money  more  than  the  agents,  and  the  young 
women  agree  with  me.    Those  who  do  not 


159 


agree  with  me  and  who  do  not  know  me  per- 
sonally, and  who  are  not  acquainted  with  the 
facts  and  who  do  not  wish  to  be  acquainted 
with  the  facts,  say  my  one  aim  in  life  is  to  de- 
coy unsuspecting  stage-struck  girls  and  de- 
fraud them.  The  charge  is  almost  too  absurd 
to  notice.  Section  5  of  Chapter  432  of  the 
Laws  of  1904  reads — in  part — "in  case  the  ap- 
plicant shall  not  accept  or  obtain  employment 
through  such  agency,  then  such  licensed  per- 
son, shall  on  demand,  repay  the  full  amount  of 
said  fee."  Has  the  law  left  any  loop-hole  here 
to  swindle  the  unwary?  And  if  it  had  would 
I  be  likely  for  the  sake  of  a  two-dollar  fee,  to 
place  in  jeopardy  a  one  thousand  dollar  bond, 
which  I  have,  in  conformity  with  the  require- 
ments of  the  license  law,  deposited  with  the 
City  of  New  York?  Do  even  my  enemies  ac- 
cuse me  of  being  an  idiot?  And,  bond  or  no 
bond,  would  I  not  be  one  to  ruin  a  paying  busi- 
ness which  has  been  established  by  honest  deal- 
ing and  almost  five  years  of  hard  work,  by  now 
conducting  it  dishonestly? 

Some  of  these  discontented  theatrical  agents, 
who  attribute  the  falling  off  in  their  business 
to  me,  pretend  that  their  finer  sensibilities  have 
been  shocked  because  I  permit  my  clients  to 

160 


pose.  Owing  to  their  influence  (the  agents) 
with  the  press,  a  terrible  hue  and  cry,  espe- 
cially in  the  theatrical  papers,  has  been  raised 
on  this  account.  And  yet  I  have  never  exacted 
or  accepted  a  fee  from  a  stage  applicant  for 
giving  her  posing  engagements.  Nor  have  I 
ever,  directly  or  indirectly,  accepted  one  dol- 
lar from  any  firm  or  person,  who  has  ever 
given  a  client  of  mine  a  stage  engagement,  or 
a  posing  engagement,  or  employment  of  any 
kind.  This  fact  cannot  be  emphasized  too 
strongly;  because  reports  by  my  enemies  are 
being  persistently  circulated  to  the  effect  that 
I  receive  the  largest  kind  of  fees ;  that  my  two 
dollars  yearly  fee  is  a  mere  subterfuge ;  and  it 
would  be  impossible  for  me  to  meet  my  ad- 
vertising bills  alone  on  any  such  insignificant 
amount.  These  aspersions  are  made  to  create 
the  impression  that  I  must,  from  the  necessity 
of  the  case,  be  in  league  with  disreputable  re- 
sorts of  one  kind  or  another.  But  there  is  not 
a  word  of  truth  in  the  malicious  reports.  It's 
all  one  DAMNABLE  lie.  And  I  defy  any  per- 
in  the  world  to  prove  to  the  contrary. 

That  thousands  of  my  clients  have  earned 
money  by  posing,  I  admit.  There  is  not  a  peri- 
odical or  pictorial  magazine  or  a  fashion 

161 


magazine  supplement  issued  by  a  daily  or  Sun- 
day or  evening  newspaper  in  Greater  New 
York  in  which  pictures  of  my  clients  have  not 
appeared. 

If  all  the  papers  were  to  reject  my  advertise- 
ments how  would  I  fill  your  orders  in  the 
future?  If  you  wish  I  will  send  you  a  list  of 
the  names  of  my  young  women  clients  who 
have  posed  for  your  fashion  plate  artists  and 
commercial  photographers. 

Among  the  illustrators  Charles  Dana  Gib- 
son, Howard  Chandler  Christie  and  Edson  M. 
Knox,  of  the  Knox  Illustrating  Syndicate  of 
Newark,  N.  J.,  are  my  largest  customers. 
Among  the  commercial  photographers  and 
fashion  journals — Eddowes  Brothers,  L.  S. 
White,  Sarony,  the  Tonnele  Company,  the 
Fashion  Camera  Company,  the  Dry  Goods 
Economist,  Butterick's  and  the  Illustrated 
Milliner — are  my  largest  customers. 

To  rebut  the  testimony  of  slanderers,  I  can- 
not only  refer  to  these  and  hundreds  of  others, 
but  hold  in  reserve  an  army  of  clients ;  an  army 
ready  at  the  first  call  to  appear  as  witnesses  in 
my  behalf;  ready  to  testify  under  oath  that 
they  have  never  seen  a  thing  done,  or  heard  a 

162 


word  spoken,  or  a  question  asked  in  my  office 
which  would  cause  umbrage  even  to  a  prude. 

If  those  who  say  or  intimate  that  the  busi- 
ness of  my  office  is  not  properly  conducted  dare 
to  make  known  their  identity,  I  would  gladly 
give  them  the  opportunity  to  prove  their  asper- 
sions in  a  court  of  law.  But  they  are  cowards, 
and  what  they  say  is  said  behind  my  back.  If 
you  can  show  me  one  bona-fide  complaint, 
signed  by  a  bona-fide  client  of  mine,  or  by  her 
or  his  parent  or  guardian,  I  will  never  ask  you 
to  insert  another  advertisement  for  me  in  your 
paper  as  long  as  I  live. 

The  possibility  of  a  client  of  mine  having 
just  cause  to  complain  against  me  is  so  remote 
it  has  never  occurred.  The  law  does  not  com- 
pel me  after  I  have  accepted  a  fee  from  an  ap- 
plicant to  procure  an  engagement.  It  merely 
compels  me  to  refund  the  fee  if  I  fail  to  pro- 
cure an  engagement  satisfactory  to  the  ap- 
plicant. It  is  optional  with  her  as  to  whether 
she  accepts  or  rejects  any  engagement  I  may 
offer.  I  have  no  jurisdiction  in  the  matter. 
Therefore,  if  I  comply  with  the  law,  and  no 
customer  or  client  of  mine  has  ever  accused  me 
of  not  doing  so,  how  is  it  possible  for  her  to 
enter  a  just  complaint  against  me? 

163 


Under  the  license  law  I  am  obliged  to  keep 
a  register,  in  which  must  be  alphabetically  re- 
corded the  names  and  addresses  of  all  my 
clients,  and  the  names  and  addresses  of  those  to 
whom  I  have  referred  clients  for  work.  To 
omit  to  enter  the  names,  or  to  substitute  a  false 
one,  constitutes,  as  per  section  four  of  the 
license  law,  a  misdemeanor. 

This  book,  which  is  examined  bi-monthly 
according  to  law,  by  government  officers,  I  am 
willing  to  place  at  your  disposal  to  prove  you 
have  never  received  a  complaint  against  me 
that  was  not  written  anonymously,  or  signed 
fictitiously,  or  by  some  person  purporting  to 
have  transacted  business  with  me,  but  whose 
name  does  not  appear  on  my  books.  The  com- 
plaints which  have  influenced  you  to  reject  my 
advertisements  have  been  made  by  these  out- 
side alleged  clients,  these  impostors,  these  pre- 
tenders, these  mischief  makers,  whose  aim  it 
has  been  to  inflict — not  to  right — a  wrong. 
Yours  truly, 

Jared  Flagg. 

This  letter  did  the  business ;  it  covered  the 
ground;  and  after  reading  it,  after  seeing  my 
documentary  evidence,  and  after  investigating 

164 


my  business,  every  manager  of  every  paper 
who  had  been  constrained  to  reject  my  adver- 
tisements immediately  inserted  them. 

And  what  did  the  members  of  the  Agents' 
Protective  Association  do  then?  Why,  they 
hired  a  hall — the  Grand  Central  Palace — 
Forty-third  street  and  Lexington  avenue,  and 
January  6th,  1905,  invited  Frederick  L.  C. 
Keating,  at  that  time  License  Commissioner 
for  the  City  of  New  York,  to  come  and  hear 
their  grievances.  Did  he  come?  He  did,  and 
what  is  more,  made  a  speech.  He  told  the 
agents  how  much  respect  he  had  for  them  and 
how  little  he  had  for  any  man  who  would  ad- 
vertise to  place  young  women  on  the  stage.  He 
refrained  from  mentioning  my  name,  but 
every  one  in  the  hall  knew  to  whom  he  re- 
ferred. The  more  he  maligned  me,  the  more 
applause  he  received,  and  he  grew  eloquent. 
He  did  not  advocate  my  single,  all  year,  two 
dollar  commission,  but  told  the  agents  he  ap- 
proved of  their  regular  half-week's  salary 
commission,  and  hinted  that  they  might  even 
charge  the  members  of  the  Profession  a  com- 
mission equivalent  to  the  entire  first  week's  sal- 
ary and  still  be  within  the  scope  of  the  law. 

Mr.  Keating  is  only  thirty-two  years  of  age, 

165 


and  this  sentiment,  emanating  from  one  so 
young,  elicited  prolonged  applause. 

After  finishing  his  harangue,  many  of  the 
agents  grasped  his  hand  and  pressed  it  with 
fervor,  and  he  returned  the  grip,  as  much  as  to 
say,  leave  it  to  me.  They  left  it,  and  what  did 
he  do?  He  sent  an  inspector — a  Mr.  G.  W. 
Hamilton — with  a  stenographer,  to  my  office, 
the  very  day  after  he  had  delivered  his  oration, 
to  secure  a  list  of  the  names  and  addresses  of 
my  clients  and  my  customers.  Not  a  few  names, 
but  hundreds,  beginning  with  A  and  not  stop- 
ping until  they  had  reached  Z.  These  were 
his  orders  and  Mr.  Hamilton  had  to  obey 
orders. 

And  what  did  Mr.  Keating  propose  to  do 
with  these  names?  My  clients  would  not  go 
to  him;  they  had  no  cause  to  complain;  so  he 
decided  to  go  to  them,  and,  if  possible,  coerce 
them  to  complain. 

To  revoke  my  license  without  jeopardizing 
his  own — that  is,  his  own  license  to  act  as  a 
License  Commissioner — it  would  be  necessary 
to  produce  a  complainant,  preferably  some 
person  with  whom  I  had  transacted  business, 
and  who  would  make  a  charge  against  me.  It 
was  for  this  reason  that  he  wanted  the  list  of 


166 


names ;  and  with  the  hope  of  discovering  some 
one  person  from  among  the  large  list,  who 
would  be  willing  to  appear  against  me,  he  de- 
tailed seven  Inspectors  to  scour  the  city  from 
the  Battery  to  the  Bronx.  But,  notwithstand- 
ing that  these  inspectors  interviewed  hundreds 
of  my  clients,  they  were  unable  to  find  one  who 
could,  would  or  did  make  any  complaint 
against  me.  And,  after  wasting  a  great  deal  of 
time,  and  incidentally  a  great  deal  of  the  city's 
money,  Keating  gave  it  up  as  a  bad  job. 

In  the  meantime,  I  was  doing  a  large  busi- 
ness. The  more  the  agents  kicked,  the  more  I 
was  blackguarded,  the  more  business  I  seemed 
to  do.  Actors  and  actresses,  who  had  never 
heard  of  me  previously,  now  called  at  my 
office  and  registered.  Theatrical  managers 
also  called,  and  I  was  literally  "snowed-under" 
with  orders.  At  times,  there  was  not  standing 
room  in  my  offices. 

In  addition  to  the  main  office,  we  now  had 
five  uptown  sub-offices.  To  keep  them  all  in 
operation — that  is,  to  keep  even  with  the  de- 
mand, in  addition  to  my  newspaper  advertise- 
ments, I  sent  out  a  circular  of  which  the 
following  is  a  correct  copy: 


167 


"Advice  to  Those  Who  Denounce  the 
Stage. 

"If  a  young  woman  is  good  looking,  she 
knows  it;  she  does  not  have  to  be  told;  and  if 
obliged  to  support  herself,  I  do  not  blame  her 
for  wishing  to  go  on  the  stage.  What  legitimate 
vocation  can  she  adopt  that  will  pay  her  so 
well,  or  afford  half  so  many  opportunities  for 
advancement? 

"The  salaries  usually  paid  to  chorus  girls  of 
the  better  class  range  from  fifteen  to  twenty 
dollars  per  week,  and  'front  row'  or  'show 
girls'  frequently  receive  twenty-five  to  thirty- 
five  dollars  per  week.  Furthermore,  if  a 
young  woman  displays  talent,  there  is  no  tell- 
ing how  high  a  salary  she  may  command.  It 
is  not,  however,  always  a  case  of  money.  The 
love  of  admiration,  the  glitter,  the  excitement 
of  the  life  and  possibility  of  ultimate  fame  are 
incentives. 

"If  a  young  woman  is  imbued  with  the  idea 
that  she  may  make  the  hit  of  her  life  on  the 
stage  (and  every  great  actress  that  has  ever 
lived  has  been  imbued  with  this  same  idea)  it 
is  a  waste  of  time  to  try  to  convince  her  she 
may  make  the  mistake  of  her  life. 

m 


"In  denouncing  the  stage,  you  only  make 
her  more  determined  to  'go  on,'  or,  if  dutiful^ 
more  miserable  by  remaining  off.  It  does  not 
cool  her  ardor;  it  does  not  cure  her.  If  she 
has  the  'fever'  nothing  will  cure  her — that  is, 
nothing  but  a  dose  of  the  'real  article,'  and 
even  this  may  not  prove  effective,  because 
work  we  enjoy  is  not  drudgery;  work  we  can- 
not enjoy  is  drudgery.  Stage  aspirants  enjoy 
their  work;  they  love  their  profession;  and  a 
young  woman  who  loves  the  stage,  as  a  profes- 
sion, can  endure  work.  Consequently,  she  is 
more  likely  to  meet  with  success  on  it  than  in 
any  other  calling. 

"If  a  chorus  girl  has  ambition,  a  good  con- 
stitution, a  cheerful  disposition,  and  is  not  too 
old  or  too  young,  too  tall  or  too  short,  too  fat 
or  too  lean,  there  is  no  telling  what  she  may 
accomplish  behind  the  'foot-lights.'  Many 
of  the  most  beautiful  women  in  the  world  are 
there  and  they  are  workers  and  enjoy  life  and 
are  not  depraved.  A  woman  can  be  on  the 
stage,  and  be  good,  even  if  beautiful. 

"Although  our  chorus  girls,  as  a  whole,  may 
be  more  daintily  formed  and  attractive,  they 
are  not  morally  inferior  to  their  sisters  who 
are  idling  their  lives  away  doing  nothing  or 

169 


eking  out  an  existence  in  distasteful  domestic 
or  mercantile  pursuits.  The  good  and  the 
bad  are  to  be  found  among  the  bad  and  the 
good  in  all  walks  of  life ;  and,  if  too  much  at- 
tention, too  many  letters,  too  many  invita- 
tions, too  many  bouquets,  and  too  many  ad- 
mirers will  turn  a  young  woman's  head,  it  in- 
dicates that  she  has  inherited  a  weak  head 
from  her  ancestors.  Is  this  her  fault?  Is  it 
the  fault  of  the  stage?  On  the  stage  disci- 
pline is  maintained,  and,  if  she  will  attend  to 
her  stage  duties  and  not  attend  to  too  many 
wine  suppers,  she  will  command  respect. 

"The  danger,  especially  if  your  daughter 
has  inherited  any  of  your  sporty  proclivities, 
will  occur  after  the  show,  not  during  the  per- 
formance. But,  if  only  good  has  been  be- 
queathed— inherited — you  can  repose  con- 
fidence in  your  child.  If  trustworthy,  trust 
her.  Nothing  causes  a  young  woman  greater 
anguish  than  to  be  regarded  with  suspicion  by 
those  whom  she  loves. 

"Many  parents  show  faith  in  their  offspring 
by  not  trusting  them  out  of  sight,  and  children 
usually  show  their  appreciation  of  this  style 
of  parental  solicitude  by  making  up  for  lost 
time  as  soon  as  they  are  out  of  sight.  En- 


170 


forced  idleness  and  too  much  chaperoning  in 
time  becomes  unendurable. 

"If  you  wish  your  daughter  to  feel  that  life 
is  worth  living  you  will  permit  her  to  be  oc- 
cupied in  some  pursuit  which  engrosses  her 
mind.  You  will  not  stifle  her  ambition  and 
deprive  her  of  the  satisfaction  of  earning — for 
services  actually  rendered — an  honest  dollar. 
Money  earned  in  the  theatrical  profession  is 
honestly  earned.  The  stage  to-day  is  not  what 
it  was  years  ago.  An  ill-bred,  vulgar  person 
will  not  be  tolerated,  even  in  a  second-rate 
burlesque  company.  Many  of  the  most  re- 
fined and  cultured  young  women  (and  with 
the  consent  of  their  parents)  are  now  adopt- 
ing the  stage  as  a  means  of  livelihood.  A  few 
years  ago  this  was  not  the  case.  I  do  not  mean 
to  intimate  that  good  and  noble  women  were 
not  to  be  found  on  the  stage  in  days  gone  by, 
but  never  before  in  its  history  were  so  many 
of  this  kind  on  it  as  at  the  present  time. 

"Those  who  talk  the  loudest  about  the  tribu- 
lations and  depravities  of  stage  life  have  had 
no  stage  experience.  They  are  ignorant  of 
the  facts;  they  entertain  puritanical  notions 
regarding  the  theatre;  they  are  narrow- 
minded,  bigoted  and  afflicted  with  false  pride. 


171 


Each  year,  however,  as  we  become  more  en- 
lightened this  prejudice  becomes  less  pro- 
nounced. The  stage,  as  well  as  the  world,  is 
advancing — not  deteriorating.  Every  person 
cannot  join  the  Profession.  We  are  not  all 
sufficiently  inviting  and  prepossessing  in  ap- 
pearance ;  nor  have  we  all  the  talent  to  act,  or 
to  sing  and  to  charm  and  dance  and  amuse  and 
interest  and  entertain  and  distract  the  mind 
from  the  everyday  cares  of  life.  If  a  young 
woman  believes  she  possesses  this  gift,  does  it 
signify  that  she  contemplates  disgracing  her- 
self or  friends?  And  if  she  attempts  to  de- 
velop it,  should  she  be  disinherited  and  ostra- 
cised? 

"Without  occupation  there  can  be  no  happi- 
ness; and  life  without  a  future  is  not  worth 
living.  Why  then  blight  the  happiness  and 
even  the  lives  of  those  who  wish  to  be  engaged 
in  a  congenial  and  honorable  occupation  and 
look  forward  to  a  future?" 


Anything  improper  about  this  circular? 
And  yet  the  newspapers  tried  to  convey  the 
idea  that  it  contained  a  hidden  meaning. 

It  was  when  these  circulars,  in  large 
quantities,   were    going   out   and  business 

172 


was  coming  in  that  Smith,  who  had 
always  prided  himself  on  the  fact  that  he  had 
never  in  adversity  nor  in  the  joys  of  prosperity 
permitted  himself  to  become  affiliated  with 
any  woman,  lost  his  heart  and  I  lost  Smith. 
And  as  I  stood  alone,  without  my  "old  stand- 
by," while  our  business,  figuratively  speaking, 
was  bowling  along  under  a  clear  sky  and  full 
spread  of  canvas,  I  felt  sorry  for  him,  sorry  he 
was  not  on  board,  that  his  fiancee  had  turned 
his  head,  that  she  had  persuaded  him  to  eschew 
theatricals,  settle  down  and  live  the  simple 
life. 

Often  when  we  feel  sorry  if  we  could  only 
look  ahead  far  enough  we  should  feel  glad. 
And  at  this  particular  time  I  could  not  see  far 
enough  ahead  to  sense  danger.  I  did  not  know 
that  away  off  in  the  distance  there  were  treach- 
erous, hidden  rocks,  only  occasionally  showing 
their  peaks  above  the  water  and  that  I  was 
heading  straight  for  them;  but  later,  when  it 
was  too  late  and  when  the  crash  came  and  the 
bottom  came  out  and  I  could  feel  myself  sink- 
ing, then  I  was  glad  that  brave,  unselfish  and 
loyal  Smith,  who  had  weathered  so  many 
storms,  was  not  on  board  and  was  not  being 
carried  down  with  me. 


173 


CHAPTER  VI. 


ALMOST  two  years  had  elapsed  since  the  over- 
zealous  License  Commissioner,  Keating,  had 
attempted  to  block  my  progress.  During  these 
two  years  I  had  missed  Smith  more  than  a 
little,  yet  I  had  made  real  progress. 

In  the  latter  part  of  1905  I  let  it  be  known 
that  if  any  clients  of  mine  were  dismissed  dur- 
ing rehearsals  without  being  compensated  for 
time  lost  while  rehearsing,  I  would  hold  the 
"management"  responsible. 

Complaints  had  been  coming  in  to  me  from 
several  of  my  clients.  It  seems  that  for  years 
it  had  been  a  custom  with  theatrical  managers, 
when  rehearsing  a  company,  to  hold  out  false 
inducements.  Day  after  day  and  week  after 
week  their  stage  directors  encouraged  more  to 
rehearse  than  they  might  ultimately  require. 
No  salaries  are  paid  during  rehearsals;  this  is 


174 


understood;  but  when  a  young  woman  is  in 
duced  to  rehearse  with  the  tacit  understanding 
she  is  to  have  a  contract,  and  then,  at  the  last 
moment,  owing  to  no  fault  of  her  own,  is  told 
that  her  services  will  not  be  required,  it  is  akin 
to  robbery.  To  waste  all  this  time;  to  rob  a 
young  woman  of  it;  to  lead  her  on;  to  keep 
her  rehearsing,  spending  carfare  and  lunch 
money,  and  at  times  even  pawning  jewelry  to 
provide  the  necessities  of  life,  as  she  struggles 
on  without  pay  under  the  mistaken  impression 
she  is  to  be  engaged,  did  not  seem  to  me  like  a 
square  deal. 

The  managers  claimed  that  they  received 
no  benefit  in  rehearsing  these  extra  girls  and, 
therefore,  the  young  women,  if  dismissed, 
should  expect  no  compensation.  But  I  main- 
tained that  this  was  not  a  valid  reason.  If  it 
did  the  managers  no  good  why  did  they  in- 
variably rehearse  a  larger  chorus  than  they 
contemplated  employing?  Was  it  not  to  in- 
sure themselves  against  possible  financial  loss 
by  having  trained  substitutes  ready  to  fill 
vacancies  which  are  liable  to  occur  during  the 
formation  of  a  company? 

If  a  manager  insures  his  theatre  against  fire, 
and  if  it  proves  an  unnecessary  precaution, 


175 


does  he  derive  benefit  from  his  insurance 
policy?  Can  he,  under  such  circumstances, 
compel  the  insurance  company  to  remit  the 
premium?  What  right  has  he,  therefore,  if 
he  insures  his  production  against  disaster,  and 
it  proves  an  unnecessary  precaution^  to  compel 
the  young  women  to  remit  the  premium? 
Why  should  they  foot  his  bill?  It  was  the 
custom,  but  I  decided  to  change  the  custom; 
not  from  philanthropic  motives ;  it  would  not 
be  becoming  in  me  to  pose  as  a  philanthropist; 
but  from  selfish  motives,  as  a  matter  of  busi- 
ness policy.  Realizing  that  we  can  best  help 
ourselves  by  helping  others,  I  proposed  to  help 
others,  my  clients,  by  rectifying  the  imposition 
which  had  heretofore  been  practiced  upon 
them.  With  this  end  in  view  I  retained  coun- 
sel and  forthwith  proceeded,  according  to  sec- 
tion 3221,  page  924,  of  the  Code  of  Civil  Pro- 
cedure of  the  State  of  New  York,  to  bring  the 
theatrical  managers  "up  with  a  round  turn." 

I  issued  a  circular  authorizing  clients  of 
mine  dismissed  in  this  unjust  and  unceremoni- 
ous manner  to  report  to  my  lawyer,  Irwin  E. 
Ziegler,  who  would  prosecute  their  claims  and 
pay  over  to  them  the  full  amount  recovered 
without  deducting  therefrom  one  dollar  fo* 

176 


legal  fees  or  disbursements.  This  circular 
created  a  sensation,  and  resulted  in  doubling 
my  business,  but  it  brought  down  on  my  head 
the  everlasting  wrath  of  the  theatrical  man- 
agers, who  had  formerly  been  cordial  in  their 
business  relations  with  me. 

Some  people,  even  with  the  best  intentions, 
have  the  unhappy  faculty  of  making  enemies, 
and  now  I  had  not  only  the  agents  but  the 
theatrical  managers  against  me.  Yet  I  was 
transacting,  as  my  books  showed,  far  more 
business  than  ever  before.  The  members  of 
the  Profession  came  in  droves  to  commend  me 
for  the  stand  I  had  taken  against  the  man- 
agers. It  is  pleasant  to  be  "lauded  to  the 
skies;"  we  like  to  listen  to  it;  and  in  order  to 
have  time  to  listen  I  suspended  business  and 
set  apart  one  afternoon  each  week,  and  gave  a 
"five  o'clock  tea." 

At  each  affair  a  different  hostess  presided, 
but  chaperoned  by  her  mother.  It  was  a 
"crush,"  yet  they  all  seemed  to  enjoy  them- 
selves; and  when  I  think  of  those  days,  the 
sparkling  wit,  the  fun,  the  pleasant  greetings, 
now  only  a  memory,  gone,  perhaps  never  to 
return,  it  makes  me  long  to  have  my  license 
back;  my  agency  license,  unjustly  withheld 


177 


irom  me  (as  will  be  hereinafter  shown),  and 
to  live  over  again  the  life  of,  and  to  be  again,  a 
theatrical  agent. 

If  we  cannot  get  enjoyment  out  of  our  busi- 
ness, if  we  are  waiting  for  a  time  to  come 
when  we  can  afford  to  retire  and  take  things 
easy  before  enjoying  life,  we  may  die  without 
knowing  what  it  is  to  live. 

I  have  lived;  but  now,  with  a  teapot  and 
three  hundred  and  thirty-six  transparent  imi- 
tation Dresden  china  teacups  on  my  hands 
and  no  use  for  them  I  am  beginning  to  feel  a 
little  lonesome.  Some  persons  are  so  dead  sick 
of  their  own  society  that  they  feel  lonesome  all 
the  time  unless  in  the  society  of  others.  At 
the  time  these  cups  and  saucers  were  doing 
service  I  was  conceded  to  be  the  most  exten- 
sively advertised  theatrical  agent  in  the  United 
States.  I  had  practically  cornered  the  chorus 
girl  market;  everyone  said  I  had  them  all,  and 
there  was  truth  in  it.  Even  the  theatrical 
newspapers  admitted  that  I  was  master  of  the 
situation.  Every  theatrical  agent  in  the  city, 
when  it  came  to  filling  a  large  order,  was  at  my 
mercy.  By  raising  a  finger  I  could  turn  the 
tide  in  his  direction,  or  I  could  turn  it 
in  the  direction  of  some  other  theatrical 


178 


agent,  or  I  could  ignore  all  the  agents  and 
send  my  clients  direct  to  a  manager.  He 
could  not  give  a  show  without  the  young 
women,  and  if  he  did  not  take  them  from  me 
he  could  go  without  them.  The  fact  that  I 
would  not  permit  a  client  of  mine  to  be  dis- 
charged, during  the  rehearsing  season,  without 
compensation,  might  make  him  ('fume"  a 
little,  and  he  might,  for  a  bluff,  "turn  down" 
applicants  coming  from  my  office;  but  in  the 
end  he  would  swallow  his  pride  and  take 
them;  not  because  he  wanted  to,  but  because 
he  knew  that  if  he  did  not  take  them  from  me 
directly  he  would  have  to  take  them  from  me 
indirectly,  through  other  agents,  as  I  practi- 
cally controlled,  as  previously  stated,  almost 
the  entire  chorus  girl  output. 

The  epithets  used,  by  some  of  these  man- 
agers and  agents  at  this  time,  in  connection 
with  my  name  did  much  to  make  it  known.  It 
is  our  rankest  enemies,  not  our  loving  friends, 
that  advertise  us,  and  for  quite  a  period  I  was 
the  most  talked  about  person  on  the  "Rialto." 
I  was  blamed  and  I  was  praised.  If  I  hap- 
pened to  drop  in  at  any  one  of  the  all-night 
restaurants  along  the  "Great  White  Way,"  for 
every  one  manager  or  agent  who  defamed  me 


179 


when  I  was  not  looking,  a  hundred  "show 
girls"  upheld  me  and  drank  to  my  health 
when  I  was  looking. 

But  it  was  not  only  in  New  York;  the  news 
had  "spread  like  wildfire";  and  in  Boston 
Philadelphia,  Chicago  and  San  Francisco  my 
circulars  offering  to  protect  my  clients,  free  of 
cost  to  them,  were  read  with  avidity;  read  in 
secret  by  the  young  women  when  down  under 
the  stage  in  their  dressing-rooms  with  doors 
securely  locked. 

The  mere  fact  that  this  particular  circular 
was  kept  by  my  clients  under  cover  away 
from  the  eyes  of  the  managers  was  enough 
to  make  every  young  woman  in  the 
company  want  to  see  it  and  want  to  know 
all  about  it.  Men  dislike  details,  but 
women  want  full  particulars.  What  is  two 
dollars  to  a  "front  row  chorus  girl,"  com- 
pared to  rehearsing  two  months  with  the  risk 
of  then  being  dismissed  without  cause  and 
without  pay?  It  was  not  to  be  considered; 
and  when  the  next  rehearsing  season  came 
around  the  two  dollar  bills  flowed  into  my 
office  twice  as  fast  as  they  ever  had  before; 
and  those  who  paid  them  were  protected,  ab- 
solutely.    We  did  not  lose  a  case,  for  the 

i8o 


obvious  reason  that  the  managers  knew  they 
did  not  have  a  leg  on  which  to  stand,  and  so 
settled  all  claims,  instituted  by  my  clients,  out 
of  court.  Some  of  the  managers  would  re- 
consider the  matter  when  they  realized  what 
might  happen  to  them,  and  would  reinstate 
the  chorus  singers  who  had  been  cast  adrift  at 
the  last  moment. 

Thus  it  can  be  seen  that  I  was  successful 
in  rectifying  this  unjust  custom;  a  custom 
which  had  existed  for  years  and  which,  now 
that  I  am  no  longer  a  theatrical  agent,  again 
exists. 

I  have  explained  in  detail  why  I  was  not 
popular  with  certain  theatrical  agents,  and  I 
have  explained  in  detail  why  I  was  not  popu- 
lar with  certain  theatrical  managers,  in  order 
that  the  reader  may  understand  the  motive 
these  men  (not  all,  but  several)  had  in  com- 
bining, and  in  using  their  influence,  politi- 
cally and  otherwise,  to  have  me  driven  from 
the  theatrical  field. 

Money — the  love  of  which  is  the  root  of  all 
evil — was  the  moving  power.  I  was  a  "thorn 
in  the  side"  to  the  agents  and  an  expense  to  the 
managers,  and  when  you  touch  a  man's  pocket 
you  touch  him  in  a  tender  spot. 

181 


CHAPTER  VII. 


Do  NOT  misunderstand  me.  Although  in  cer- 
tain quarters  the  feeling  against  me  was  run- 
ning high,  not  for  one  moment  do  I  accuse  all 
the  theatrical  managers,  or  all  the  theatrical 
agents.  Many  of  them,  and  over  their  own 
signatures,  have  assured  me  that  they  took  no 
part  in  the  disgraceful  proceedings  instituted 
against  me.  Probably  not  more  than  twenty 
per  cent,  were  implicated,  and  these  acted 
without  the  consent  or  knowledge  of  the  presi- 
dent, or  the  board  of  directors  of  the  Theatri- 
cal Agents'  Society. 

The  treasurer  of  the  Society,  in  1906, 
Webster  Cullison,  was  one  of  the  prime  mov- 
ers against  me.  Mr.  Cullison  on  June  21,  1905, 
wrote  to  me  stating  that  he  was  in  urgent 
need  of  one  thousand  young  women  for  chorus 
work.  He  had  received  large  orders  and  was 
unable  to  fill  them.   I  declined  to  accept  his 

182 


order  on  the  ground  that  I  was,  at  the  time, 
deluged  with  orders  of  my  own  received  di- 
rectly from  theatrical  managers.  After  read- 
ing my  letter  to  this  effect  Cullison  sent  Philip 
Watkins,  manager  of  his  operatic  department, 
to  my  office  to  try  to  persuade  me  to  execute  a 
part,  if  not  all,  of  his  order;  but  in  justice  to 
my  clients  I  could  not  do  so.  It  was  against 
my  rules,  if  I  could  prevent  it,  to  subject 
clients  of  mine  to  additional  expense;  if  I  had 
it  in  my  power  to  place  them  directly  with 
managers  I  did  not  propose  to  allow  another 
agent  to  make  another  fee  out  of  them.  But 
if  I  could  not  "book"  them  directly,  and  if 
some  other  agent  could,  then  it  became  op- 
tional with  them  as  to  whether  or  not  they 
cared  to  pay  the  additional  fee,  and  if  they  did 
desire  to  do  so  I  would  give  them  letters  of  in- 
troduction to  the  other  agent. 

Watkins  explained  the  situation  to  Cullison, 
and  later  informed  me  that  Cullison  was 
highly  incensed  at  me  for  the  stand  I  had 
taken.  Miss  Grace  Proctor,  Miss  Beatrice 
Phelps  and  Miss  Mabelle  Texas  also  told  me 
that  Mr.  Cullison  had  spoken  disparagingly 
of  me  to  them,  and  all  because  I  would  not 
permit  him  to  make  a  few  hundred  dollars  (in 

183 


commissions)  out  of  my  clients.  Evidently  he 
felt  sore;  it  must  have  rankled  in  his  breast  a 
long  time,  over  eight  months,  as  on  March  20, 
1906,  he  sent  out  an  invitation  to  his  brother 
agents,  whose  orders  for  the  same  reason  I  had 
also  rejected,  inviting  them  to  meet  him  in  his 
office  Sunday  evening,  March  25,  1906,  to 
discuss  (as  he  put  it)  :  "that  man  Flagg." 

In  his  letter  asking  me  to  help  him  fill  his 
orders  it  was  "My  Dear  Mr.  Flagg;"  but  now 
(as  he  no  longer  could  see  any  prospect  of 
making  money  out  of  my  clients) ,  it  was  "that 
man  Flagg." 

About  fifteen  theatrical  agents  attended  this 
Sunday  night  conference,  and  from  all  ac- 
counts they  had  a  lively  session.  The  stenog- 
rapher, whose  duty  it  was  to  record  the  min- 
utes of  the  meeting,  had  her  hands  full. 

We  wanted  those  minutes.  By  we  I  mean 
Assistant  District- Attorney  William  Marshall 
and  myself.  We  were  under  the  impres- 
sion they  might  afford  us  a  foundation  upon 
which  to  base  an  action  of  criminal  conspiracy. 
Mr.  Marshall  tried,  at  three  different  times, 
in  my  behalf,  to  get  them.  District  Attorney 
William  Travers  Jerome  also  served  papers 
on  Cullison  demanding  that  they  be  produced 

184 


in  his,  the  District  Attorney's,  office,  but  they 
did  not  materialize.  Some  one,  no  one  knows 
who,  spirited  them  away,  and  all  those  who 
had  attended  the  meeting  were  as  "dumb  as 
clams."  When  people  simply  won't  talk  it  is 
difficult  to  prove  conspiracy.  Under  such  cir- 
cumstances, although  a  man  is  morally  sure 
that  certain  persons  have  conspired  to  ruin 
him,  it  may  be  impossible  to  prove  it  at  the 
time;  but  if  he  will  "bide  his  time,"  sooner  or 
later,  the  truth  "will  out."  As  previously 
stated,  I  have  been  biding  my  time ;  and  now, 
years  after  that  rainy  Sunday  night — that 
night  when  the  conspirators  met  in  secret  be- 
hind locked  doors,  in  the  office  of  Webster 
Cullison,  No.  1402  Broadway,  New  York  City 
— the  truth  is  beginning  to  unfold  itself  be- 
fore me. 

It  is  true  that  this  secret  session  took  place 
on  the  evening  of  March  25,  1906.  Cullison 
himself  admits  it;  also  admits  that  they  con- 
vened for  the  purpose  of  discussing  me.  Just 
how  they  discussed  me  I  cannot  state  literally, 
but  judging  from  their  subsequent  acts  and  the 
acts  of  others,  it  is  fair  to  assume  that  the 
spokesman,  in  substance,  spoke  as  follows : 

Flagg  is  acting  the  part  of  a  dog  in  the 


manger.  He  is  cutting  commissions.  He  re- 
fuses to  recognize  our  Union  and  wants  the 
'earth.'  Our  very  existence  is  threatened.  If 
Flagg  keeps  on  expanding  we  may  as  well 
close  up  shop.  He  knows  enough  to  conduct 
his  business  lawfully,  so  we  have  no  way  of  re- 
voking his  license;  but  as  it  is  about  to  die  a 
natural  death,  expire  by  limitation,  the  law 
gives  us  the  privilege  to  object  to  his  procur- 
ing a  new  one.  It  is  now  the  25th  of  March. 
Next  month  he  will  put  in  his  application  for 
a  new  license,  and  we  shall  then  have  the  legal 
right  to  pass  over  that  period  of  his  life  in 
which  he  has  been  engaged  in  the  theatrical 
agency  business,  and  rake  up  the  past.  We 
can  go  away  back  to  the  time  of  "Flagg's 
Flats,"  and  show  from  his  record  when  en- 
gaged in  the  flat  business,  that  he  is  not  entitled 
to  a  license.  This  will  be  easy  now  that  we 
have  the  License  Commissioner  and  two  ben- 
evolent women's  leagues  with  us. 

If  we  were  alone  in  this  matter;  if  it  were 
our  Society  only  that  objected,  it  might  occa- 
sion comment.  People  might  think  we  were 
interested  witnesses,  competitors;  but  with  the 
Woman's  Municipal  League  and  the  Woman's 
Rescue  League  as  joint  complainants  with 

186 


us,  it  will  be  different.  No  person  will  say 
that  these  leagues  are  pecuniarily  interested. 
Bogart,  the  License  Commissioner,  is  anxious 
to  have  everything  look  all  right,  to  seem 
straight;  and  you  cannot  blame  him.  Only  re- 
cently he  has  been  appointed  Commissioner, 
and  Flagg  might  show  fight — might  attempt 
to  make  trouble  for  him,  and  in  such  an  event 
Bogart  would  rely  not  so  much  on  us  as  on  the 
benevolent  leagues.  A  theatrical  agents'  so- 
ciety can  hardly  be  called  a  religious  society, 
and  the  Commissioner  knows,  and  we  know, 
that  the  Mayor  would  not  be  likely  to  extend 
to  our  society  much  consideration.  But  Mc- 
Clellan,  or  any  other  man,  would  not  dare 
even  to  intimate  that  Charlotte  Smith,  the  ven- 
erable head  of  the  National  and  International 
Woman's  Rescue  League  was  actuated  by 
other  than  philanthropic  motives.  So  with  the 
Woman's  Municipal  League.  Look  at  its 
board  of  directors.  Those  names  carry  weight. 
With  the  co-operation  of  these  two  leagues  I 
do  not  hesitate  to  say  our  victory  is  as  good  as 
won,  etc.,  etc. 

If  the  reader  cannot  understand  why  the  flat 
business  should  be  connected  with  the  theatri- 
cal business  let  him  consider  the  following  il- 

187 


lustration :  Suppose,  for  example,  a  physician 
had  built  up  a  large  practice  by  charging  a 
small  fee;  suppose  certain  other  doctors  had 
said  to  him,  "Here,  this  thing  must  stop;  if 
you  do  not  charge  your  patients  as  much  as  we 
charge  ours  we  will  bring  influence  to  bear 
and  have  your  license  taken  from  you.  Then  if 
you  persist  in  practicing  without  a  doctor's 
certificate  we  shall  see  to  it  that  the  authorities 
jail  you."  Suppose  they  had  talked  like  this 
to  him  and  suppose  he  had  said  to  them:  "You 
can't  do  it,"  and  they  had  replied,  "Oh,  yes  we 
can,  and  we  will  tell  you  why.  Years  ago,  long 
before  you  thought  of  becoming  an  M.D.  you 
owned  and  leased  flat  buildings  all  over  the 
city,  and  some  of  your  West  Eighteenth  street 
tenants,  on  a  hot  night  in  the  dead  of  summer, 
went  up  on  the  roof  and  after  old  man  Mc- 
Goff's  daughter — the  one  with  the  nightingale 
voice — had  warbled  to  the  entertainment  of 
the  others,  for  an  hour  or  so,  they  all  joined  in 
and  commenced  to  sing  'She  is  the  Sunshine  of 
Paradise  Alley.'  This  disturbed  the  peace  of 
the  neighborhood.  Think  what  that  means. 
We  do  not  say  you  were  present;  in  fact,  we 
are  aware  you  were  not;  we  know  you  did  not 
live  on  the  premises,  and  that  you  were  in 

188 


Long  Branch,  N.  J.,  registered  at  the  Ocean 
Hotel,  at  the  time;  but  that  does  not  exon- 
erate you  in  the  eyes  of  the  law ;  they  were  your 
buildings  and  your  tenants,  and,  when  on  the 
stand  and  under  oath,  you  had  to  admit  it. 
Therefore  you  are  not  a  fit  person  to  practice 
medicine,  and  we  are  sure  the  authorities, 
when  appealed  to,  will  so  decide." 

Now  possibly  the  reader,  if  versed  in  legal 
lore,  may  understand  the  connection,  but  it 
"beats"  me.  I  never  could  see  where  it  "came 
in."  Yet  this  was  my  case  exactly,  only  in- 
stead of  being  a  licensed  physician  I  was  a 
licensed  theatrical  agent,  and  the  other  agents 
were  sure  that  I  was  not  a  fit  person  to  con- 
duct a  theatrical  agency  because  ten  years  pre- 
viously a  handful  of  my  tenants,  in  a  certain 
part  of  the  city,  had  disturbed  the  peace  of 
the  neighborhood;  wherefore  they  appealed  to 
the  authorities. 

On  the  first  day  of  each  May  in  each  year 
a  theatrical  agent's  license  expires.  Then  if 
the  agent  wishes  to  continue  in  the  business 
he  must  make  application  for  a  new  license; 
and  under  the  license  law,  as  recently 
amended,  it  is  left  entirely  to  the  discretion  of 
the  License  Commissioner  as  to  whether  or 

189 


not  he  will  grant  a  license.  Actuated  by 
prejudice,  spite,  animosity,  political  influence, 
a  desire  to  accommodate  friends  or  to  obey  the 
commands  of  a  district  leader,  or  for  any 
other  unlawful  cause  he  may  say,  "In  my  dis- 
cretion I  decline  to  issue  a  license."  And  the 
applicant,  however,  worthy,  has  no  redress 
other  than  an  appeal  to  the  Appellate  Division 
of  the  Supreme  Court,  which  entails  an  enor- 
mous expense  and  a  delay  of  about  eighteen 
months. 

My  application  for  a  new  license  was  de- 
nied, but,  as  previously  stated,  no  reason  could 
be  shown  why  my  old  license  could  be  re- 
voked ;  and,  as  a  matter  of  fact  and  record,  it 
was  not  revoked;  statements  made  by  the  news- 
papers to  the  contrary,  notwithstanding.  My 
enemies  were  obliged  to  wait  until  my  old 
license  had  died  a  natural  death,  expired  by 
limitation,  before  objecting  to  its  renewal.  But 
when  the  time  arrived  to  apply  for  a  new 
license,  May  i,  1906,  then  it  was  that  my  en- 
emies put  the  so-called  benevolent  women's 
leagues  to  the  front. 

The  fact  that  there  had  been  nothing  in  the 
legal  or  moral  conduct  of  my  agency  business 
during  the  years  in  which  I  had  been  engaged 


IOO 


in  it  that  any  person  could  object  to,  was  not 
to  be  taken  into  consideration.  The  "Honor- 
able" John  N.  Bogart,  License  Commissioner, 
in  the  exercise  of  his  discretion,  ruled  that  that 
had  nothing  to  do  with  the  matter.  Did  my 
West  Eighteenth  street  tenants  ten  years  ago 
disturb  the  peace  of  the  neighborhood?  That 
was  the  question  and,  to  settle  it,  he,  the  herein 
named  Commissioner,  allowed  the  allies  of  the 
theatrical  agents,  the  so-called  women's  benev- 
olent leagues,  to  go  back  to  the  time  of  my 
"flat"  trial,  1896,  and  assign  it  as  a  sufficient 
cause  why  I  should  not,  in  1906,  ten  years 
later,  be  legally  permitted  to  honorably  com- 
pete against  the  theatrical  agents. 

The  Theatrical  Agents'  Society  made  no 
complaint  against  me  but,  nevertheless,  cer- 
tain members  of  their  Union  were  instru- 
mental in  securing  the  services  of  Charlotte 
Smith  of  the  alleged  Woman's  Rescue  League, 
and  Helen  Arthur  of  the  Municipal  League, 
to  aid  the  License  Commissioner  in  "pulling 
the  chestnuts  out  of  the  fire,"  so  to  speak. 

In  New  York  City  there  are  many  societies, 
also  individuals,  trying  to  make  a  living  with- 
out working;  parasites  who  eke  out  an  exist- 
ence by  humbugging  the  people,  and  the 


191 


meanest  of  all  are  those  who  obtain  money 
under  false  pretenses,  by  begging  in  the  name 
of  charity;  who  pretend  to  be  interested  in  the 
unfortunate;  but  who,  in  reality,  are  only  in- 
terested in  themselves. 

These  imposters,  the  majority  of  whom  are 
women,  filch  money  from  kind-hearted  persons 
in  all  walks  of  life  by  conveying  the  impres- 
sion it  is  to  be  used  in  helping  the  helpless, 
whereas  the  major  portion  of  the  funds  so  col- 
lected are  misappropriated  and  used  in  help- 
ing themselves.  To  facilitate  collections  these 
unprincipled  professional  beggars  often  unite 
and  form  what  they  call  a  "League." 

In  forming  a  benevolent  "League"  of  this 
kind,  the  first  requisite,  after  the  promoters 
have  endowed  it  with  an  impressive  name,  but 
no  cash,  is  to  rope  in  a  few  confiding  estimable 
women  and  make  a  dummy  board  of  directors 
of  them.  This  gives  prestige  to  the  organiza- 
tion, and  enables  the  conspirators  to  carry 
on  their  calling  with  profit  to  themselves. 
Reputation  is  more  to  these  people  than  jus- 
tice. They  are  more  anxious  to  seem  saintly 
than  to  be  saintly.  They  have  no  respect  for 
truth,  care  nothing  for  facts,  but  are  slaves  to 
custom.  They  subsist  on  public  approval ;  and 


192 


the  so-called  officers,  those  who  pay  to  them- 
selves the  salaries,  are  ever  on  the  alert  to  sup- 
press their  unrighteous  and  make  known  their 
righteous  acts.  They  would  bill  the  town  like 
a  circus  and  blazon  their  good  deeds  far  and 
wide,  if  it  did  not  cost  money  to  advertise.  It 
is  against  their  principles  to  pay  for  anything, 
but  if  they  can  jump  on  any  one,  and  thereby 
gain  a  little  free  advertising,  they  will,  with  or 
without  evidence,  pick  up  their  skirts  and 
jump. 

The  License  Commissioner  and  a  few  of  the 
smaller  theatrical  agents,  realizing  this  fact, 
and  the  importance  of  having  arrayed  against 
me  seemingly  powerful  and  reputable  wit- 
nesses, invoked,  as  previously  stated,  the  co- 
operation of  the  aforementioned  so-called 
benevolent  leagues.  Therefore  the  question 
arises,  were  my  business  competitors,  those 
who  had  connived  with  these  "Leagues,"  and 
the  License  Commissioner,  guilty  of  criminal 
conspiracy? 

When  two  or  more  persons  combine  to  in- 
jure another  person's  reputation  or  business, 
that,  in  the  eyes  of  the  law,  constitutes  criminal 
conspiracy. 

Judge  Hough,  of  the  United  States  Court, 

193 


when  instructing  a  jury  regarding  conspiracy, 
said:  "A  conspiracy  is  a  confederation  to  effect 
by  unlawful  means  a  legal  end,  or  by  legal 
means  an  illegal  end.  It  is  not  necessary  that 
two  or  more  men  meet  and  formally  enter  into 
an  agreement  or  unlawful  scheme.  It  is 
enough,  if  two  or  more  men,  in  any  manner, 
come  to  a  mutual  understanding  to  accomplish 
an  unlawful  design.  All  parties  become  part- 
ners to  a  conspiracy,  even  if  the  part  is  a  sub- 
ordinate one. 

"Our  statutes  insist  that  at  least  one  shall 
actually  perform  some  act  to  effect  the  object 
of  the  conspiracy.  The  act  must  be  an  overt 
one,  but  not  in  itself  a  crime." 

In  reply  to  a  juror's  question,  "Does  crim- 
inal intent  to  commit  the  overt  act  have  to  be 
shown?"  Judge  Hough  said,  "If  the  acts  speak 
for  themselves  you  are  at  liberty  to  infer  the 
intent." 

I  shall  leave  it  to  the  reader  to  determine 
whether  or  not  the  acts,  hereinafter  set  forth, 
of  those  who  conspired  against  me,  speak  for 
themselves.  If  they  do,  then  according  to 
Judge  Hough  (and  no  one  can  say  he  is  not  an 
authority)  the  reader  is  at  liberty  to  infer  the 
intent. 


194 


I  shall  tell  you  who  they  are  and  cite  their 
acts,  the  acts  of  the  leading  actors  in  chrono- 
logical order,  one  at  a  time,  so  that  the  reader 
may  see  if  the  acts  of  each  "speak  for  them- 
selves." 

Charlotte  Smith.  Who  is  Charlotte  Smith? 
She  styles  herself  President  of  the  "National 
and  International  Woman's  Rescue  League." 
No  address. 

I  quote  from  the  minutes  of  my  third  hear- 
ing before  the  License  Commissioner: 

By  H.  D.  Mildeberger  (Mr.  Flagg's  law- 
yer) :  "Mrs.  Smith,  where  is  your  league 
located — your  office?" 

"We  have  no  office  just  now." 

"Did  this  league  of  yours  ever  have  an 
office?" 

(Witness  refuses  to  answer.) 

"Is  it  not  a  fact  that  your  Rescue  League  is 
a  myth?" 

(Witness  refuses  to  answer.) 

By  Lawyer  Goodhart  (attorney  for  the  al- 
leged "Woman's  Rescue  League")  :  "I  object 
to  all  further  questions  about  this  league.  We 
will  allow  it  to  be  understood  that  this  wit- 
ness does  not  appear  here  as  representing  any 
league,  but  simply  as  a  private  citizen." 


195 


By  Mr.  Mildeberger.  "This  woman  has 
been  giving  it  out,  representing  to  the  public 
and  to  the  newspapers  that  she  is  the  President 
of  the  Woman's  Rescue  League.  I  claim 
and  I  can  prove  by  affidavits  and  by  the  So- 
ciety for  the  Prevention  of  Crime  and  by 
other  equally  credible  witnesses  that  no  such 
league  exists;  that  it  is  a  myth  and  that  this 
witness  is  an  impostor.  I  also  claim  these 
questions  in  order  to  attack  the  credibility 
of  the  witness,  and  this  I  have  a  legal  right 
to  do." 

By  the  License  Commissioner:  "You  might 
have  that  right  in  a  court  of  law,  but  WE  DO 
THINGS  DIFFERENTLY  HERE.  I  will  not  allow 
any  questions  regarding  this  league  because  ac- 
cording to  the  statement  of  the  attorney  who 
represents  this  witness,  no  such  league  appears 
here  or  is  represented  before  me." 

So  much  for  Charlotte  Smith.  Now  Helen 
Arthur.  Who  is  Helen  Arthur?  She  is 
a  lawyer  in  petticoats;  the  legal  ad- 
viser and  head  of  the  "Research  De- 
partment" of  the  Woman's  Municipal  League, 
19  East  Twenty-sixth  street,  New  York  City. 
But  with  all  the  facilities  of  the  "Research  De- 
partment" of  this  league  at  her  command  she 

196 


failed  to  find  or  coerce  any  person  (and  she 
tried  for  weeks)  who  could,  or  did,  have  aught 
to  say  against  me.  Furthermore,  although  she 
was  looking  for  trouble,  looking  for  it  all  the 
time,  she  failed  to  discover  anything  out  of 
the  way,  in  the  conduct  of  my  business,  the  con- 
duct of  my  customers,  the  conduct  of  my 
young  women  clients,  or  my  own  conduct;  and 
subsequently  she  so  stated  in  writing  and  I 
hold  the  original  letter.  And  this  letter  was 
given  to  me  after  this  league  had  employed 
both  men  and  women  accomplices  to  call  at 
my  office  and  try  in  every  way  possible,  by  ly- 
ing and  spying,  to  entrap  me.  But  I  never 
would  have  known  this  had  not  Helen  Arthur 
told  me. 

It  was  only  at  rare  intervals  that  improper 
proposals  were  made  to  me,  and  when  made 
by  a  woman  I  would  order  her  out  of  my  office, 
and  when  made  by  a  man  I  would  kick  him 
out. 

Miss  Arthur  knows  what  happened  to  the 
man  she  sent  to  me,  and  yet,  knowing  how  he 
made  his  exit  from  my  office,  she — Helen  Ar- 
thur— to  accommodate  the  License  Commis- 
sioner, although  she  had  no  complaint  to  enter 
against  me,  appeared  at  my  hearing,  March 


197 


28th,  1906,  thereby  conferring  upon  the  Com- 
missioner the  benefit  of  the  prestige  of  the 
league  she  represented. 

Bogart  evidently  believed  that  it  would 
"clear  his  skirts"  of  being  in  collusion  with 
the  other  conspirators  to  say  the  Woman's 
Municipal  League  had  appeared  against  me; 
and  so  anxious  was  he  to  be  able  to  say  this  that 
he  asked  Helen  Arthur  (so  she  says)  to  be 
present  with  or  without  a  complaint,  and  to 
accommodate  him  she  was  on  hand  and  did  the 
best  she  could.  She  "button-holed"  the  re- 
porters, and  also  the  Associated  Press  repre- 
sentative, and  intimated  to  him  and  to  the 
others  that  "Some  day — some  day,  the  Wo- 
man's Municipal  League,  now  that  I  am  at  the 
head  of  its  'Research  Department,'  may  have 
a  complaint  to  lodge  against  Flagg."  "Some 
day — some  day" — Lawyer  Helen  Arthur  may 
become  a  Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court. 

Later,  realizing  the  gravity  of  the  crime  she 
had  committed,  and  having  heard  that  the  Dis- 
trict Attorney  had  made  demand  on  Cullkon 
to  produce  the  minutes  of  the  secret  Sunday 
night  meeting,  and  fearing  a  prosecution  for 
criminal  conspiracy,  this  weak-minded  woman 

198 


retracted  in  writing  all  that  she  had  said 
against  me.  So  much  for  Helen  Arthur. 

Now  Goodhart.  Who's  Lawrence  G.  Good- 
hart?  He  says  he  is  Austin  Davis,  the  theat- 
rical agent's  lawyer,  and  there  is  no  question 
about  it.  Some  time  prior  to  the  March  25, 
1906,  Sunday  night  meeting,  Davis  instituted 
a  damage  suit  against  the  Morning  Telegraph 
Publishing  Company,  Eighth  avenue  and  Fif- 
tieth street,  New  York  City,  and  as  Good- 
hart's  name  appears  on  the  complaint  as  the  at- 
torney of  record,  it  is  proof  positive  that  Good- 
hart  is  his  lawyer.  Please  do  not  lose  sight  of 
this  fact,  nor  of  the  fact  that  Davis  is  a  mem- 
ber of  the  Theatrical  Agents'  Society. 

Away  back,  years  ago,  long  before  any 
theatrical  agent  wanted  to  put  me  out  of  busi- 
ness, Charlotte  Smith  introduced  herself  to 
Goodhart's  client,  Austin  Davis;  and,  as  time 
rolled  by,  became  well  acquainted  both  with 
Mr.  and  Mrs.  Davis;  but  they  did  not  become 
so  well  acquainted  with  her.  By  her  hypocrit- 
ical representations  they  were  led  to  believe 
that  she  was  a  Christian  woman. 

Early  in  the  month  of  September,  1905,  she 
dropped  into  Davis's  office  to  have  a  "heart  to 
heart"  talk  with  him  and  his  wife.  She 


199 


wanted  them  to  supply  her  with  "talent"  free 
in  order  that  she  might  give  herself  a  benefit, 
but  she  did  not  say  so  to  Davis.  She  told  him 
the  proceeds  of  the  proposed  benefit  were  to 
go  to  Bertha  Claiche,  the  poor  "white  slave 
girl,"  at  that  time  incarcerated  in  the  Tombs, 
charged  with  murder. 

Davis,  impressed  by  Mrs.  Smith's  seeming 
good  intentions,  agreed  to  help  her  out,  sup- 
posing, of  course,  as  also  did  the  performers, 
that  the  money  really  was  to  go  to  the  poor 
"white  slave  girl."  But  Davis  knows  better 
now. 

The  entertainment  was  given  in  Association 
Hall,  No.  1 60  West  Twenty-ninth  street, 
New  York  City,  September  28th,  1905;  but 
Charlotte  Smith,  so  it  is  said,  got  away  with 
the  entire  box-office  receipts.  At  all  events 
this  much  is  certain,  Bertha,  for  whose  benefit 
the  entertainment  was  supposed  to  have  been 
given,  did  not  receive  a  penny  and  wrote  Davis 
a  letter,  from  the  Tombs,  to  this  effect. 

Davis  is  one  of  the  kind,  whose  temperature 
rises  and  falls  in  a  hurry,  and  when  told  that 
Charlotte  Smith  had  skipped  with  Bertha's 
box-office  receipts  he  was  hot,  but  he  cooled 
off. 


200 


In  December,  1905,  after  the  Bertha  Claiche 
affair  had  "blown  over,"  the  alleged  president, 
Charlotte  Smith,  of  the  fictitious  "National 
and  International  League"  again  "turned  up" 
at  the  theatrical  office  of  Austin  Davis.  This 
time  she  was  more  modest  in  her  demands. 
She  did  not  mention  "benefit,"  she  substituted  a 
different  word — "accommodate."  If  Davis 
would  accommodate  her  by  writing  two  let- 
ters, on  his  theatrical  letterhead  paper;  one 
asking  her  to  rescue  certain  young  women  who 
had  been  enticed  into  an  immoral  resort,  and 
the  other,  dated  two  weeks  later,  thanking  her 
for  having  done  so;  in  other  words,  thanking 
her  for  having  rescued  young  women  who  did 
not  exist;  it  would  place  her  under  obligations 
to  him.  She  wanted  these  two  letters  for  beg- 
ging purposes.  She  needed  the  money  and  the 
letters  were  important;  she  could  show  them, 
use  them  as  evidence  to  prove  that  she  was 
consecrating  her  life  to  a  noble  cause —  the  res- 
cuing of  the  fallen ;  whereas  the  only  case  on 
record,  the  only  person  whom  she  was  ever 
known  to  have  rescued  from  want,  was  herself, 
and  she  accomplished  this  by  begging  from 
and  imposing  on  the  charitably  inclined. 

When  Mrs.  Davis  discovered  that  Mr. 


201 


Davis  had  signed  and  given  this  woman  these 
two  letters  she  became  excited.  Women  do, 
sometimes,  become  excited;  and  Mrs.  Davis 
told  me  herself  that  she  had  no  use  for  women 
of  the  Charlotte  Smith  stripe.  But  Mr.  Davis 
explained  to  his  wife,  and  I  was  present  at 
the  time,  that  Mrs.  Smith  was  a  dangerous 
and  scheming  woman;  there  was  no  telling 
what  she  might  do;  she  might  have  made 
trouble  for  them  both  had  he  refused  to  com- 
ply with  her  request.  He  gave  her  the  letters 
not  because  he  wanted  to,  but  because  he  con- 
sidered it  the  part  of  discretion  not  to  incur 
her  enmity.  He  admitted  to  his  wife  that  he 
would  like  to  have  his  letters  back,  and  told 
me  he  had  already  consulted  his  lawyer,  Law- 
rence G.  Goodhart,  about  the  matter,  and 
Goodhart  had  advised  him  to  have  no  more 
dealings  with  the  woman  as  she  was  unques- 
tionably an  impostor. 

It  is  important  to  keep  in  mind  that  all  this 
— my  conversation  with  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Davis 
and  his  interview  with  his  legal  adviser,  Good- 
hart, relative  to  the  two  begging  letters — took 
place  in  1905.  It  was  in  this  year  that  Davis 
signed  the  spurious  begging  letters  to  accom- 
modate Charlotte  Smith;  and  it  was  in  1906 


202 


that  Charlotte  Smith  signed  a  spurious  com- 
plaining letter  to  accommodate  Davis. 

The  day  after  the  secret  Sunday  night  meet- 
ing, held  March  25th,  1906,  in  Cullison's 
office,  for  the  purpose  of  discussing  me,  Char- 
lotte Smith  called  on  Davis's  lawyer,  this  self- 
same Lawrence  G.  Goodhart,  attorney-at-law, 
No.  21  Park  Row,  New  York  City,  with  a  let- 
ter of  introduction,  dated  one  day  later, 
March  26th,  1906.   This  is  not  disputed. 

Now  who  sent  her  to  Goodhart's  office? 
Did  someone  at  that  secret  Sunday  night 
meeting,  held  the  evening  before  the  day  she 
called  on  Davis's  lawyer,  make  a  motion  that 
she,  Charlotte  Smith,  be  secured  to  aid  them 
in  their  effort  to  deprive  me  of  my  license; 
and  did  it  go  down  on  the  minutes  of  the 
meeting  that  this  pretender  was  to  co-operate 
with  them  in  the  conspiracy  to  put  me  out  of 
business? 

Now  do  you  understand  why  District 
Attorney  Jerome  could  not  lay  hands  on  those 
minutes?  Can  you  imagine  why  they  were 
spirited  away;  why  every  "mother's  son"  of 
them  in  that  room,  that  night,  there  assembled 
for  the  purpose  of  discussing  me,  would  rather 
be  fined  and  sent  to  jail  for  contempt  of  court 


203 


than  be  "brought  up"  on  the  more  serious 
charge  of  criminal  conspiracy  with  ten  to 
twenty  years  staring  them  in  the  face?  Can 
you  blame  them,  under  such  circumstances, 
for  doing  away  with  such  incriminating  evi- 
dence, the  minutes  of  such  a  meeting? 

Davis  was  a  member  of  the  Agents'  Union. 
Goodhart  was  his  lawyer.  The  day  after  the 
union  held  its  meeting,  Mrs.  Smith  was 
closeted  with  Goodhart  and  the  outcome  was 
the  following  letter.  I  quote  from  the  minutes 
of  my  first  hearing  before  the  License  Com- 
missioner. 

By  Commissioner  Bogart:  "Under  date  of 
April  3d,  1906,  I  received  the  following  letter, 
addressed  to  the  Commissioner  of  Licenses: 
Dear  Sir — My  client,  the  Woman's  Rescue 
League,  instructs  me  on  its  behalf  to  protest 
against  the  granting  of  a  renewal  license  to  one 
Jared  Flagg.  And  to  support  its  protest,  re- 
spectfully calls  your  attention  to  the  following 
facts:  Mr.  Flagg  has  been  advertising  in  the 
daily  papers  for  young  girls  to  act  as  artists' 
models;  and  in  this  connection,  and  as  bearing 
upon  Mr.  Flagg's  fitness  to  conduct  such  an 
agency  and  for  such  a  purpose,  the  enclosed 
memorandum  and  letter  taken  from  the  files 


204 


of  the  Woman's  Rescue  League  will  prove  in- 
teresting. If  you  desire  any  other  information 
upon  this  point  the  officers  of  the  League  stand 
ready  to  appear  before  you  at  any  hearing  you 
may  fix.  My  client  further  instructs  me  to 
call  your  attention  to  the  fact,  publicly  re- 
ported in  the  daily  newspapers,  that  Jared 
Flagg  served  under  his  own  name  at  Auburn 
State's  Prison,  a  sentence  of  about  two  years 
for  the  crime  of  decoying  young  girls  to  houses 
of  ill-repute  which  he  rented  for  that  purpose. 
Of  course  I  make  these  statements  as  attorney 
for  the  League,  and  my  client  stands  ready  to 
back  them  up  by  ample  and  sufficient  evidence. 

As  I  have  stated,  the  enclosed  copy  of  a 
letter  and  explanatory  note  is  taken  from  the 
files  of  the  League.  The  letter  was  sent  to 
Mr.  Flagg  and  there  is  every  reason  to  believe 
it  was  received,  as  my  client's  name  and  ad- 
dress was  in  the  corner  of  the  envelope  upon 
its  regular  printed  form  and  the  letter  has 
never  been  returned  by  the  post  office. 
"Very  truly  yours, 
"Lawrence  G.  Goodhart, 

"Attorney  for  Woman's  Rescue  League." 

It  cannot  be  presumed  that  an  out  and  out 


205 


fool  could  become  a  member  of  the  New 
York  Bar.  Therefore,  conceive  if  you  can, 
an  intelligent  lawyer  holding  some  such  con- 
versation as  the  following  with  a  half-witted 
old  woman : 

Intelligent  Lawyer:  How  did  you  make  out 
last  year  with  those  fake  letters  you  got  Davis 
to  write  for  you  for  begging  purposes? 

Old  Woman:  Those  letters  paid  well  and  I 
feel  deeply  obligated  to  Davis,  and  that  is  why 
I  am  here. 

Intelligent  Lawyer:  Yes,  I  know.  So  I  am 
to  put  in  legal  form  that  the  Woman's  Rescue 
League  wishes  to  make  a  protest  against  the 
granting  of  a  renewal  license  to  one  Jared 
Flagg? 

Old  Woman:  That's  the  idea.  We  pro- 
pose to  put  him  out  of  business.  He's  a  bad 
man.  He  once  bribed  Reverend  Doctor  C.  H. 
Parkhurst  and  President  Theodore  Roosevelt 
to  testify  for  him. 

Intelligent  Lawyer:  Don't  say  that,  my 
dear  madam,  that's  a  little  too  much.  We  want 
the  charges  we  bring  against  this  man  to 
seem,  at  least,  half-way  reasonable. 

Old  Woman:  But  it  is  true,  he  bribed  them 
all  right.   I  am  the  president  of  the  "National 


206 


and  International  Woman's  Rescue  League'' 
and  I  ought  to  know.  I  may  not  be  so  sure 
about  Roosevelt,  but  I  know  all  about  Park- 
hurst  and  Flagg. 

Intelligent  Lawyer:  And  you  desire  me 
to  call  the  License  Commissioner's  attention 
to  the  fact  that  Flagg  has  been  advertising  in 
the  daily  papers  for  young  girls  to  act  as 
artists'  models? 

Old  Woman:  Yes.   Isn't  it  disgraceful? 

Intelligent  Lawyer:  In  what  papers  does  his 
advertisement  appear? 

Old  Woman:  All  of  them  I  suppose. 

Intelligent  Lawyer:  Name  one. 

Old  Woman:  It  was  some  time  ago  and  I 
forget. 

Intelligent  Lawyer:  Could  I  send  to  a 
newspaper  clipping  bureau;  have  the  files  ex- 
amined and  by  this  means  procure  such  an 
advertisement? 

Old  Woman:  There  are  so  many  advertise- 
ments I  can't  guarantee  you'll  find  his,  but  I 
am  sure  I  saw  it  somewhere  in  some  paper. 

Intelligent  Lawyer:  When? 

Old  Woman :  How  can  I  remember  when? 

Intelligent  Lawyer:  Was  it  this,  or  last 
year,  or  the  one  before  that? 


207 


Old  Woman:  Really  I  cannot  say.  It's 
too  bad.  I  should  have  preserved  the  paper. 

Intelligent  Lawyer:  Oh,  well,  never  mind, 
you  are  sure  you  saw  it  somewhere  and  we'll 
"stick"  it  down  anyway. 

Old  Woman:  I  have  a  memorandum  or 
letter  that  might  prove  interesting  to  the  Com- 
missioner, but  I  do  not  know  what  I  did 
with  it. 

Intelligent  Lawyer:  Who  wrote  it? 
Old  Woman :  It  was  not  signed. 
Intelligent  Lawyer:  Positive  you  cannot 
find  it? 

Old  Woman:  Not  to  save  my  life.  I  have 
looked  everywhere. 

Intelligent  Lawyer:  Oh,  well,  never  mind, 
we'll  make  a  bluff  that  we  have  such  a  letter 
and  "stick"  it  down  anyway. 

Old  Woman:  If  the  Commissioner  wants 
any  information  about  this  lost  anonymous  let- 
ter, tell  him  the  officers  of  the  "Woman's  Res- 
cue League"  stand  ready  to  appear  before  him 
at  any  hearing  he  may  fix. 

Intelligent  Lawyer:  Then  you  have  offi- 
cers? I  thought  you  were  the  whole  things 
president,  secretary  and  treasurer. 

Old  Woman:  I  am,  but  Miss  Burt,  of  132 


208 


West  Sixty-second  street,  might  say  that  she  is 
the  secretary.   She  is  a  friend  of  mine. 

Intelligent  Lawyer:  But  you  have  no  head- 
quarters, no  office,  no  home  for  the  fallen? 

Old  Woman:  Perhaps  Miss  Burt  would 
let  us  call  her  flat  our  headquarters. 

Intelligent  Lawyer:  How  large  is  her  flat? 

Old  Woman:  Kitchen,  bedroom  and  bath. 

Intelligent  Lawyer:  Oh,  well,  never  mind, 
we'll  call  it  a  home  for  the  fallen  and  "stick" 
it  down  anyway. 

Old  Woman:  It  was  reported  in  the  daily 
papers  that  Jared  Flagg  served  under  his  own 
name,  in  Auburn  State's  Prison,  a  sentence  of 
two  years,  for  the  crime  of  decoying  young 
girls  to  houses  of  ill-repute  which  he  rented 
for  that  purpose. 

Intelligent  Lawyer:  Can  you  name  any  one 
of  the  daily  papers  that  published  all  this? 

Old  Woman:  How  can  I  remember  the 
names  of  the  papers? 

Intelligent  Lawyer:  I  wish  you  could  men- 
tion the  name  of  at  least  one  paper,  or  the 
name  of  at  least  one  of  the  girls,  or  the  loca- 
tion of  one  of  the  houses  to  which  he  decoyed 
the  girls,  or  the  Court  before  which  he  was 
tried  and  convicted,  or  the  time  when  he  was 


20Q 


sentenced  or  some  one  of  the  essential  circuin 
stances,  so  as  to  make  it  look  a  little  better  to 
the  newspaper  reporters  who  will,  in  all  prob- 
ability, be  on  hand  when  we  publicly  charge 
him  with  being  a  convicted  felon. 

Old  Woman:  I  wish  I  could,  but  I  can't. 

Intelligent  Lawyer:  Oh,  well,  never  mind, 
we'll  "stick"  it  down  as  the  truth  anyway. 

Old  Woman :  That's  about  all. 

Intelligent  Lawyer:  That's  about  enough, 
and  before  I  get  through  with  him  he  will  rue 
the  day  he  refused  to  joint  the  Agents'  Union. 
Oh,  by  the  way,  I  think  we  had  better  put  in 
that  my  client  stands  ready  to  back  these 
charges  up  by  ample  and  sufficient  evidence. 

Old  Woman:  But  you  know  I  have  no  evi- 
dence. 

Intelligent  Lawyer:  Oh,  well,  never  mind, 
we'll  "stick"  it  down  anyway. 

Old  Woman:  Be  sure  to  sign  your  name  as 
attorney  for  the  "Woman's  Rescue  League"; 
it  will  look  well  in  the  newspapers. 

Intelligent  Lawyer:  Legally  I  have  no 
right  to  represent  a  make-believe  league  with- 
out an  address. 

Old  Woman:  I  cannot  help  that.  If  this 
case  gets  in  the  newspapers  it  will  advertise  us 


210 


both.  The  newspaper  account  of  this  hearing 
will  be  worth  money  to  me.  I  can  show  it  to 
people.  It  will  prove  that  I  am  really  the 
president  of  the  "Woman's  Rescue  League," 
and  it  will  help  me  in  getting  subscriptions  for 
myself.  I  can  explain  to  the  charitably  in- 
clined that  it  takes  money  to  retain  lawyers,  so 
I  want  you  to  sign  the  letter. 

Intelligent  Lawyer:  Oh,  well,  I  ought  not 
to  do  it,  but  I'll  "stick"  it  down  anyway. 

I  do  not  claim  that  the  foregoing  conversa- 
tion occurred. 

The  intelligent  lawyer,  Goodhart,  undoubt- 
edly explained,  as  best  he  could,  to  his  half- 
witted, old  woman  client,  Charlotte  Smith, 
how  he  desired  her  to  act  when  on  the  witness 
stand,  but  it  is  problematical  as  to  whether  he 
questioned  her  at  all  regarding  the  bogus 
charges  he,  as  attorney  for  the  bogus  "Wo- 
man's Rescue  League,"  proposed  making  and 
ultimately  made  against  me.  If,  however,  he 
did  question  her,  it  is  reasonable  to  assume 
that  her  replies  to  his  questions  were,  in  sub- 
stance, the  same  as  her  replies  to  my  lawyer's 
questions  when  he  cross-examined  her  regard- 
ing the  same  bogus  charges.  If  this  is  so,  then 
Goodhart  heard  before,  observe,  before  he 


211 


made  the  charges  against  me,  he  heard,  from 
the  lips  of  his  own  client,  Charlotte  Smith, 
that  she  could  not  produce  one  witness,  or  a 
scrap  of  evidence  of  any  kind,  to  substantiate 
any  one  of  the  charges  he  was  about  to  make 
on  behalf  of  the  bogus  "Woman's  Rescue 
League."  And  yet,  cognizant  of  this  fact,  he 
deliberately,  in  public,  with  the  room  full  of 
reporters,  at  my  hearing  before  the  License 
Commissioner,  made  them.  He  made  them 
knowing  that  every  newspaper  in  the  city 
would  publish  them  as  true,  and  this  is  just 
what  they  did  do. 

At  my  third  hearing,  several  days  later,  be- 
fore the  License  Commissioner  the  charges  he 
had  previously  made  were  proven  ABSOLUTELY 
FALSE  and  without  foundation.  But  the  news- 
papers made  no  mention  of  this  fact. 

I  quote  from  the  minutes  of  my  third  hear- 
ing before  the  License  Commissioner,  that  the 
reader  may  know  the  replies  Charlotte  Smith 
made  when  testifying  under  oath,  to  my  law- 
yer's questions  relating  to  the  false  charges 
contained  in  the  aforementioned  letter,  which 
was  read  to  the  newspaper  reporters  at  my 
first  hearing. 

(By  H.  D.  Mildeberger,  Mr.  Flagg's  law- 


212 


yer.)    "Mrs.  Smith,  you  charge  Mr.  Flagg 
with  having  advertised  in  the  daily  papers  for 
young  girls  to  act  as  artists'  models?" 
Mrs.  Smith:  "Yes." 

Mr.  Mildeberger:  "Can  you  mention  the 
name  of  any  paper  containing  any  such  adver- 
tisement?" 

Mrs.  Smith:  "No." 

Mr.  Mildeberger:  "Can  you  remember 
when  you  saw  any  such  advertisement?" 
Mrs.  Smith:  "No." 

Mr.  Mildeberger:  "As  bearing  on  this  sub- 
ject it  is  stated  that  a  memorandum  or  letter 
taken  from  the  files  of  your  'League/  will 
prove  interesting  to  the  Commissioner.  Was 
any  such  memorandum  or  letter  sent  to  the 
Commissioner,  or  have  you  any  such  memo- 
randum or  letter  in  your  possession?" 

Mrs.  Smith:  "I  did  have,  but  can't  find  it." 

Mr.  Mildeberger:  "It  is  stated  that  the 
officers  of  your  'League'  stand  ready  to  ap- 
pear before  his  Honor,  the  Commissioner,  at 
any  hearing  he  may  fix.   Is  this  true?" 

Mrs.  Smith:  "I  don't  know." 

Mr.  Mildeberger:  "What  is  the  Woman's 
Rescue  League?" 

Mrs.  Smith:    "I  am  the  president  of  the 


213 


National  and  International  Woman's  Rescue 
League." 

Mr.  Mildeberger:  "Who  is  its  vice-presi- 
dent?" 

Objected  to  by  Lawyer  Goodhart. 

Objection  sustained  by  his  Honor  the 
License  Commissioner. 

Mr.  Mildeberger:  "Who  is  its  secretary?" 

Objected  to  by  Goodhart. 

Objection  sustained  by  his  Honor  the  Com- 
missioner. 

Mr.  Mildeberger:  "Who  is  its  treasurer?" 
Objected  to  by  Goodhart. 
Objection  sustained  by  his  Honor  the  Com- 
missioner. 

Mr.  Mildeberger:  "Did  you  tell  Mr. 
Goodhart  that  Mr.  Flagg  had  served  two 
years  in  Auburn  State's  Prison?" 

Mrs.  Smith:  "I  told  him  I  thought  I  had 
seen  it  so  reported  in  the  newspapers." 

Mr.  Mildeberger:  "Mr.  Goodhart  stated 
in  his  letter  to  the  Commissioner  that  his 
client  (meaning  you)  stood  ready  to  back  up 
these  charges  with  ample  and  sufficient  evi- 
dence. Did  you  tell  him  that  you  had  such 
evidence?" 

Mrs.  Smith:  "I  did  not." 


214 


Mr.  Mildeberger:  "Did  you  tell  Mr. 
Goodhart  that  you  could  prove  Mr.  Flagg  had 
served  a  term  in  Auburn  State's  Prison  or  any 
other  State's  prison?" 

Mrs.  Smith:  "I  did  not." 

Mr.  Mildeberger:  "Did  you  tell  him  that 
you  could  produce  evidence  to  prove  that  Mr. 
Flagg  had  sent  girls  to  houses  of  ill-repute  or 
that  you  could  mention  the  names  of  any  such 
girls?" 

Mrs.  Smith:  "Well,  I  told  him  I  would 
try  to  find  such  evidence." 

Mr.  Mildeberger:  "Well,  can  you  men- 
tion the  name  of  any  one  girl,  or  the  location 
of  any  one  disreputable  house,  or  person,  to 
whom  a  girl  was  ever  sent  by  Mr.  Flagg?" 

Mrs.  Smith:  "No,  but  a  party  uptown 
told  me  he  thought  he  had  heard  of  some  such 
thing." 

Mr.  Mildeberger:  "Did  you  ever  meet  a 
girl,  or  do  you  know  of  any  person  who  ever 
did  meet  one,  who  claimed  to  have  been  sent 
by  Mr.  Flagg  to  such  a  resort  or  to  such  a 
person?" 

Mrs.  Smith:  "In  going  about,  so  many 
people  tell  me  so  many  things  on  different 
matters  that  I  can't  remember." 


215 


Mr.  Mildeberger:  "Mrs.  Smith— and  I 
want  you  to  think  carefully  before  answering 
this  question — can  you  produce  any  evidence 
at  all  to  substantiate  any  one  of  the  charges 
your  so-called  'Woman's  National  and  Inter- 
national Rescue  League'  has  preferred  against 
Jared  Flagg?" 

Mrs.  Smith:  "Since  hearing  that  these 
charges  had  been  made  against  Flagg  in  the 
newspapers,  I  have  been  looking  and  expect- 
ing to  get  such  evidence,  but  have  not  been  able 
to  get  hold  of  any." 

Mr.  Mildeberger:  "That's  all  for  the 
present." 

Now  then,  if  Goodhart  did  not  question  his 
client,  did  not  know  what  her  answers  would 
be  to  these  questions  until  he  heard  them  under 
cross-examination  on  the  witness-stand,  whom 
do  you  suppose  he  questioned? 

No  man,  however  depraved,  would  com- 
pose such  a  letter,  containing  such  charges 
against  a  person  whom  he  knew  or  did  not 
know,  without  an  incentive. 

When,  where  and  by  whom  the  letter  was 
originally  framed  up  I  do  not  say.  It  was 
dated  April  3d,  1906,  eight  days  after  the 
secret  Sunday  night  meeting,  held  to  discuss 

216 


me,  in  Cullison's  office,  and  it  was  signed 
"Lawrence  G.  Goodhart,  Attorney  for  the 
Woman's  Rescue  League."  But  at  this  time 
Goodhart  did  not  know  me  from  Adam.  He 
may  have  heard  of  me,  but  he  also  may  have 
heard  of  Adam,  so  who  put  him  up  to  it?  He 
says  (and  I  am  quoting  from  the  minutes  of 
my  third  hearing  before  the  License  Com- 
missioner) :  "I  wrote  that  letter  out  of  charity. 
I  am  an  American  citizen"  (he  does  not  look 
it,  but  he  says  it)  "and  I  am  proud  of  my 
native  city,  New  York.  I  regard  this  cur  a 
menace  to  the  community,  and  I  want  to  put 
him  where  he  belongs,  behind  the  bars." 

Vituperation  is  not  evidence,  but  as  Good- 
hart had  no  evidence  this  was  undoubtedly  the 
best  he  could  do.  Yet  as  a  rule  persons  do  not 
pamper  their  vanity  to  such  an  extent.  The 
pride  Mr.  Goodhart  takes  in  his  native  city 
would  not  in  itself  have  induced  him  to  ruin  a 
fellow  citizen's  business  and  reputation,  even 
if  he  had  in  his  possession  evidence  of  wrong- 
doing. Much  less  then  would  his  pride  have 
induced  him  to  ruin  my  business  and  reputa- 
tion, without  a  particle  of  evidence,  in  or  out 
of  his  possession,  of  wrongdoing.  We  must 
therefore  look  for  some  stronger  motive.  He 


had  a  motive;  it  was  an  ulterior  one,  and  he 
was  afraid  to  let  it  be  known,  but  inadver- 
tently, after  a  magnificent  burst  of  vitupera- 
tion displaying  knowledge  of  the  phraseology 
of  the  slums,  and  just  as  he  was  about  to  take 
his  seat,  he  remarked  (and  I  am  quoting  his 
exact  words  taken  from  the  minutes)  :  "Austin 
Davis,  the  theatrical  agent,  and  other  clients 
of  mine  have  been  looking  up  Flagg's  record 
and  I  have  been  helping  them." 

That  was  an  error.  Goodhart  should  have 
kept  that  information  to  himself. 

"Davis  and  other  clients  have  been  looking 
up  Flagg's  record  and  I  have  been  helping 
them." 

Before  a  lawyer  will  help  a  client  he  usually 
wants  a  retainer.  Is  this  not  so?  Now  we 
are  getting  at  the  motive.  Goodhart  was 
helping  them.  Charlotte  Smith,  he  says,  paid 
him  no  fee.  This  seems  reasonable.  The  poor 
old  lady  was  not  in  a  position  to  pay  anyone 
money.  She  had  not  given  herself  a  benefit 
performance  for  almost  a  year.  But  Davis — 
"Davis,"  Goodhart  says,  "and  other  clients" — 
"other,"  of  course  there  were  others.  Davis 
was  not  the  only  member  of  the  Theatrical 
Agents'  Society,  and  a  little  assessment,  all 

218 


around,  might  have  a  tendency  to  make  Good- 
hart  "get  busy."  But  why  did  he  not,  if  they 
had  been  looking  up  my  record,  invite  them 
down  to  my  hearing  and  give  them  all  a  chance 
to  tell  us  what  immoral,  improper,  fraudulent 
or  illegal  acts  of  mine  they  had  unearthed? 

Out  of  all  the  theatrical  agents  that  had 
been  engaged,  according  to  Goodhart's  own 
words,  in  looking  up  my  record,  not  one  could 
be  found  to  come  down  and  testify  against 
me.  Does  this  not  seem  a  little  strange?  Why 
did  Goodhart  not  "trot"  down  a  few  of  them? 
Why  could  he  not  coax  Cullison  or  Davis  to 
put  in  an  appearance,  and  so  give  my  lawyer 
an  opportunity  to  ask  them  why  they  had 
waited  until  this  late  date  to  look  up  my 
record? 

Cullison  had  known  me  for  years.  Davis 
had  known  me  and  had  done  business  with  me 
for  five  years.  He  had  made  commissions  by 
placing  my  clients  on  the  stage.  He  had,  occa- 
sionally, accepted  of  my  hospitality,  and  I  had 
also,  from  time  to  time,  assisted  him,  by  refer- 
ring young  women  and  young  men  to  him  who 
wished  to  take  dancing  lessons.  In  connection 
with  his  agency  he  conducted  a  stage  dancing 
academy.   He  once  offered,  and  wanted  me  to 

219 


accept,  in  consideration  of  sending  these  extra 
pupils  to  him  a  part  of  his  tuition  fees.  But  I 
felt  that  both  he  and  his  wife  worked  hard  for 
their  money,  and  were  entitled  to  it  all ;  so,  re- 
fused to  take  one  dollar  from  him. 

Davis  has  written  me  many  letters.  One 
will  suffice  to  explain  the  tenor  of  all: 

."Austin  Davis  Theatrical  Exchange, 
45  West  Twenty-ninth  Street, 

New  York,  September  29th,  1904. 
Mr.  Jared  Flagg: 

Dear  Sir. — A  few  lines  to  thank  you  for 
remembering  the  office.  The  young  lady 
called  to-day  and  arranged  with  my  wife  for 
a  complete  course  of  chorus  training.  In  re- 
gard to  the  other  young  ladies  I  will  let  you 
hear  from  me  in  a  day  or  two  as  to  the  exact 
time  I  shall  want  them  in  the  city.  I  refer 
to  the  six  I  spoke  to  you  about. 

Would  be  pleased  to  have  you  call  in  any 
evening  you  can  conveniently  do  so.  With 
best  wishes  from  us  both,  I  remain, 
Yours  respectfully, 

(signed)  AUSTIN  DAVIS." 

The  reader  may  notice  that  this  communica- 
tion is  dated  September  29th,  1904.    It  was 


220 


along  in  1905  and  1906  that  Davis  and  Culli- 
son  and  some  of  the  other  agents  commenced 
to  feel  uneasy  because  the  theatrical  managers 
were  pouring  in  their  orders  to  me  direct, 
thus  curtailing  their  income — the  fees — that 
is,  the  fees  my  clients  had  formerly  paid  to  the 
agents  for  "booking."  Now  I  was  doing  the 
"booking,"  and  yet  only  charging  my  regula- 
tion two  dollar  per  year  registration  fee.  This 
Davis,  and  some  of  the  other  agents,  thought 
was  a  little  "too  much  of  a  good  thing."  Davis 
became  alarmed,  and  started  in  with  others,  so 
Lawyer  Goodhart  says,  to  look  up  my  record. 
He  said  it  and  it  is  down  in  black  and  white  on 
the  minutes  of  my  third  hearing  before  the 
License  Commissioner.  But  how  embarrassing 
my  lawyer  would  have  made  it  for  those  agents 
if  they  had  "shown  up"  at  my  hearing.  Think 
of  the  letters  he  would  have  requested  them  to 
read. 

At  the  time  of  my  hearing  there  was  not  in 
all  this  city  a  theatrical  agent  who  had  not 
transacted  business  with  me,  and  letters — I 
had  them  on  file  by  the  hundreds — letters  of 
the  most  cordial  kind,  thanking  me  for  favors 
extended.  Think  how  these  agents,  I  refer  to 
the  ones  who  were  engaged  in  looking  up  my 


221 


record,  would  have  enjoyed  reading  those  let- 
ters, and  identifying  their  signatures.  Think 
of  the  questions  my  lawyer  would  have  asked. 
Would  he  have  wanted  to  know  why  in  the 
name  of  common-sense  they  had  waited  so 
long  before  manifesting  a  disposition  to  inves- 
tigate my  morality?  Could  any  one  of  them, 
or  rather  would  any  one  of  them,  have  dared 
to  give  the  real  reason?  Can  you  not  see,  now, 
why  they  kept  in  the  background,  and  held 
their  little  secret  Sunday  night  meeting  be- 
hind locked  doors  in  Cullison's  office,  and 
elected  to  make  "scapegoats"  of  Helen  Arthur, 
Charlotte  Smith,  Lawrence  G.  Goodhart  and 
John  N.  Bogart? 

This  quartette  they  put  to  the  front  to  do 
their  "dirty  work,"  and  the  following  dates 
indicate  how  well  they  did  it: 

The  invitation  to  the  secret  Sunday  night 
meeting  was  dated  March  20th,  1906.  The 
meeting  itself  was  held  five  days  later  on 
March  25th,  1906.  The  letter  introducing 
Charlotte  Smith  to  Goodhart  was  dated  one 
day  later,  March  26th,  1906.  The  letter  con- 
taining the  bogus  charges  was  dated  eight  days 
later,  April  3d,  1906.  The  letter  notifying  me 
to  appear  before  the  License  Commissioner 


222 


was  dated  twenty-three  days  later,  April  26th, 
1906.  The  hearing  was  held  two  days  later, 
on  April  28th,  1906,  and  on  May  2d,  1906, 
three  days  later,  I  was  out  of  business. 

Any  missing  links  in  this  chain?  Any  link 
which  does  not  connect  with  the  preceding 
and  succeeding  one?  Do  not  the  dates  "dove- 
tail" in,  one  with  the  other,  in  perfect  se- 
quence as  step  by  step  the  plot  unfolds  itself? 
If  dramatized  verbatim  and  placed  on  the 
stage,  could  there  be  a  better  satire  on  justice? 

"All  parties  become  partners  to  a  conspir- 
acy, even  if  the  part  they  enact  be  a  subordi- 
nate one." 

If  the  reader  thinks  that  the  party  who 
signed  and  claims  to  have  drafted  the  afore- 
mentioned letter  of  April  3d,  1906,  charging 
me  with  having  enticed  young  girls  to  houses 
of  ill  repute,  etc.,  etc.,  committed  an  overt 
act,  it  is  not  essential  that  his  criminal  in- 
tent be  shown,  provided  the  letter  speaks  for 
itself.  If  the  reader  is  under  the  impression 
that  this  letter,  reeking,  from  the  first  to  the 
last  paragraph,  with  spurious,  lying  state- 
ments, does  speak  for  itself,  then  he  is  "at  lib- 
erty to  infer  the  intent." 

So  much  for  Lawrence  G.  Goodhart.  Now 
Bogart. 


223 


Who  is  John  N.  Bogart?  He  is  a  man  who 

swore,  when  appointed  Commissioner  of  Li- 
censes, to  conduct  the  business  of  his  office  in 
a  fair  and  impartial  manner.  He  is  a  man 
whom  the  people  of  this  city,  through  their 
Mayor,  have  vested  with  extraordinary 
powers;  the  power  to  act  as  prosecutor,  de- 
fender, jury  and  judge.  Hence,  it  becomes  his 
sacred  duty  to  conserve  the  rights  of  the  ac- 
cused as  well  as  those  of  the  accusers,  and  in 
taking  his  oath  of  office  he  swore  so  to  do,  sol- 
emnly swore  to  conduct  the  License  Bureau  of 
this  great  city  in  a  fair  and  impartial  manner. 
But  it  seems  to  me,  when  I  was  brought  up 
before  him,  he  acted  most  unfairly.  How- 
ever, it  is  for  the  reader  to  be  the  judge. 

Mr.  Bogart  knew  twenty-five  days  before 
notifying  me  to  appear  before  him  that  the 
charge  of  advertising  for  young  girls  to  act 
as  artists'  models  was  to  be  made,  and  fur- 
thermore must  have  known  that  those  who 
were  to  prefer  this  charge  against  me  had  no 
grounds  for  making  it,  and  that  it  was  utterly 
false. 

There  is  no  law  to  prevent  "young  girls"  or 
even  children  from  posing  for  artists.  If  there 
were  no  models  there  would  be  no  sculptors, 


224 


pictures  or  statuary.  But  I  never  advertised 
in  my  life  for  "young  girls  to  act  as  artists' 
models;"  and,  had  I  attempted  to  do  so,  could 
not,  for  the  obvious  reason  that  no  city  or 
country  newspaper  will  accept  an  advertise- 
ment of  this  nature.  If  there  is  such  a  thing 
as  presumptive  evidence  it  is  to  be  presumed 
that  Mr.  Bogart  was  aware  of  this  fact.  It  is 
part  of  his  official  business  to  scan  daily,  or  to 
have  scrutinized  daily,  every  help  wanted 
male  and  female  advertisement  that  appears 
in  the  newspapers  of  Greater  New  York.  The 
city  supplies  him  with  these  papers  expressly 
for  this  purpose,  and  he  must  have  known  that 
the  charge  was  ridiculous  on  its  face.  Yet  he 
not  only  authorized  it  to  be  made  in  public 
against  me,  but  accepted  the  letter  in  which  it 
was  made,  as  evidence. 

Twenty-five  days  before  he  notified  me  to 
appear  before  him  this  man,  who  had  sworn 
to  conduct  the  business  of  his  office  in  a  fair 
and  impartial  manner,  knew  that  the  charge 
was  to  be  made  that  I  had  served  a  sentence 
of  two  years  in  Auburn  State's  Prison.  In  his 
return  to  a  writ  of  certiorari,  served  on  him  by 
my  lawyer,  he  admits  that  he  knew  such  a 
charge  was  to  be  made  TWENTY-FIVE  days  be- 


225 


fore  he  allowed  it  to  be  made  in  public.  Think 
of  it.  He  admits  that  he  knew  the  accusation 
was  to  be  made,  TWENTY-FIVE  days  before  it 
was  made,  in  public  against  me ;  and  yet  during 
all  this  time,  three  weeks  and  over,  this  high 
public  official,  who  had  sworn  to  conserve  the 
rights  of  the  accused  as  well  as  those  of  the  ac- 
cusers, did  not  telephone,  telegraph,  write  or 
cause  to  be  written,  one  word  to  the  Warden 
of  Auburn  State's  Prison;  nor  did  he,  or  any 
other  person,  in  any  manner,  shape  or  form, 
communicate  directly  or  indirectly,  with  the 
Warden,  or  with  any  other  person  in  author- 
ity at  Auburn,  or  with  the  Prison  Department 
at  Albany,  N.  Y.,  or  make  the  slightest  effort, 
or  demand  the  slightest  proof,  from  any  one,  to 
substantiate  the  charge. 

The  official  records  of  the  License  Bureau 
show  that  this  fact  stands  uncontradicted  and 
ADMITTED.  Yet,  in  the  face  of  it,  John  N. 
Bogart,  knowing  that  I  was  transacting  a  large 
business,  as  shown  by  the  bi-monthly  reports 
taken  from  my  books  by  his  own  Deputy 
License  Commissioners,  and  submitted  to  him 
for  inspection,  allowed  them  to  make  this 
charge.  Knowing,  as  he  must  have  known, 
from  these  reports  that  I  had  thousands  of  re- 

226 


spectable  young  women  and  young  men  clients 
in  this  city  and  in  all  parts  of  the  country,  he 
sanctioned  the  making  of  this  charge,  the 
charge  that  I  had  served  a  sentence  of  two 
years  for  decoying  young  girls  to  houses  of  ill- 
repute.  Before  he  permitted  this  charge  to  be 
made  in  public^  did  he  know  that  it  would  be 
reported  in  the  public  press,  and  that,  true  or 
false,  my  business  would  be  ruined  and  my  rep- 
utation damned  forever?  Yes,  he  knew  it.  The 
minutes  of  the  hearing  will  prove  that  I  told 
him  so  myself  at  the  time. 

Before  the  letter  was  read  aloud  it  was 
shown  to  me.  I  pronounced  it  a  tissue  of  lies 
from  beginning  to  end,  and  begged  the  Com- 
missioner, almost  on  my  knees,  not  to  allow  it 
to  be  read  in  the  presence  of  the  reporters  until 
an  investigation  had  been  made.  But  as  their 
ONLY  aim  and  his  ONLY  aim  was  to  have  it  pub- 
lished in  the  newspapers,  he,  John  N.  Bogart, 
in  my  presence  and  against  my  emphatic  pro- 
test, and  with  a  police  officer  at  my  back  ready 
to  yank  me  out  of  the  room  if  I  created  a  scene, 
this  public  official,  whose  sworn  duty  it  was  to 
guard  my  rights,  ordered  the  letter,  this  letter 
of  April  3d,  1906,  containing  the  infamous  and 
false  charges,  to  be  read  ALOUD  in  public. 


227 


To  be  able  to  deal  over  again,  year  in  and 
year  out,  with  the  same  people,  the  same  old 
customers,  usually  constitutes  success  in  busi- 
ness. We  call  it  good-will.  The  good-will 
of  a  good,  straightforward  business  is  valuable. 
Anything  of  value  is  property.  Without  due 
process  of  law,  we  have  no  right  to  deprive  a 
person  of  his  property.  Did  John  N.  Bogart 
deprive  me  of  my  property  (the  value  of  the 
good-will  of  my  business)  without  due  process 
of  law,  when  he,  without  having  made  any  in- 
vestigation at  all,  gave  that  letter  to  the  news- 
papers? 

The  injury  was  inflicted  there  and  then. 
Lies  have  a  stupendous  circulation,  and  so 
quickly  did  the  false  report  spread,  that  al- 
most from  the  moment  it  was  given  to  the 
press,  my  clients  (and  remember  I  had  thou- 
sands of  them  in  all  parts  of  the  country,  with 
no  way  of  imparting  the  truth  to  them),  re- 
garded me  with  derision  and  my  office  as 
quarantined.  From  that  moment  they 
shunned  it  as  if  it  were  infected  with  a 
plague,  and  probably  shuddered  at  their  sup- 
posed narrow  escape.  It  may  have  been  dif- 
ficult for  them  to  believe  that  their  agent  had 
been  guilty  of  sending  any  of  his  clients  to 

228 


houses  of  ill-repute,  but  it  was  in  the  news- 
papers, and  so  must  be  true.  Then  they  began 
to  fear  that  their  relatives  and  friends  might 
believe  that  they  had  been  sent  to  these  houses 
of  ill-repute.  So  this  vile  charge  reflected  on 
them  as  well  as  on  me. 

It  was  not  only  reported  in  the  New  York 
daily  papers,  but  also  in  the  weekly  dramatic 
papers  which  are  circulated  all  over  the 
United  States  and  read  by  theatrical  people 
everywhere. 

"FLAGG  SERVED  A  SENTENCE  OF 
TWO  YEARS  IN  AUBURN  STATE'S 
PRISON  FOR  THE  CRIME  OF  DE- 
COYING YOUNG  GIRLS  TO  HOUSES 
OF  ILL-REPUTE," 

was  the  way  one  leading  theatrical  paper — 
The  Morning  Telegraph  of  May  2d,  1906 — 
announced  the  news  to  its  readers. 

And  the  New  York  Herald  of  April  29th, 
1906,  in  headline  letters,  stated  that:  "WOM- 
AN'S Leagues  of  High  Repute  Protest 
Against  a  Renewal  of  License  in  City 
for  jared  flagg.  it  is  charged  that  he 
Conducted  His  Agency  for  Improper  Pur- 
poses/' 


220 


The  New  York  World  of  May  3d,  1906, 
came  out  with  the  following: 

"Flagg  Denied  a  License.  It  has  Been 
Intimated  That  His  Agency  was  in  Real- 
ity a  Feeder  for  Disorderly  Houses." 

Other  New  York  City  daily  papers,  in  sub- 
stance, made  similar  statements. 

Was  this  the  kind  of  news  Bogart  and  the 
others  wanted  my  clients  and  their  parents  to 
read? 

It  does  not  seem  right  that  any  man  should 
be  given  such  power,  the  power  to  make  pub- 
lic, without  justification,  such  a  charge;  cast- 
ing such  a  reflection  on  such  a  number  of  in- 
nocent persons. 

Fathers,  mothers  and  brothers  rushed  to 
my  office.  One  brought  a  policeman  with 
him.  "My  sister — my  daughter — was  your 
client.  Tell  me,  tell  me  the  truth;  did  you 
ever,  ever  since  she  has  been  coming  to  your 
office,  ask  her,  send  her,  try  to  persuade  her  to 
go  to  a  disreputable  house?"  Ready  to 
tear  me  to  pieces,  and  trembling  with  rage, 
these  were  the  questions  fired  at  me,  and  had  it 
not  been  for  despatches  and  telephone  mes- 
sages, received  by  them  from  Auburn  Prison 
authorities,  in  response  to  urgent  inquiries, 
my  life  would  not  have  been  worth  two  cents. 


230 


I  am  not  easily  perturbed,  but  if  there  ever 
was  a  time  when  I  wanted  to  experience  peace 
and  serenity,  the  kind  that  comes  over  a  philos- 
opher when  incarcerated  in  a  prison  cell,  it  was 
that  day;  the  day  they  upset  chairs,  and 
jammed,  and  surged,  and  forced  their  way  into 
my  private  office.  Behind  the  uniformed  officer 
I  stood,  poking  him  in  the  ribs  and  urging  him 
to  act  quickly  and  arrest  me;  but  the  police 
never  were  disposed  to  accommodate  me  and 
this  one  would  not  on  this  occasion. 

And,  only  to  think!  just  one  little  cent 
would  have  obviated  the  placing  of  me  in  this 
false  position.  A  penny  postal  card  ad- 
dressed to  the  Warden,  would  have  brought 
back  to  the  Commissioner  the  truth,  and  well 
John  N.  Bogart  knew  it.  He  knew  it  so 
mightily  well  that  he  did  not  do  it;  but  I  did, 
and  the  following  is  a  copy  of  the  reply  I  re- 
ceived : 

"To  whom  it  may  concern: 

This  is  to  certify  that  a  careful  examination 
has  been  made  of  the  records  of  Auburn 
Prison,  and  the  name  of  Jared  Flagg  does  not 
appear  among  the  names  of  those  received  be- 
tween the  years  1894  and  1898.  Further- 
more, the  above  name  does  not  appear  on  the 

231 


records  prior  or  subsequent  to  the  above  men- 
tioned period. 

(signed)  GEORGE  W.  BENHAM, 
Warden  Auburn  State's  Prison." 

This  document  not  only  bore  the  official  seal 
of  Auburn  State's  Prison,  but  was  certified  to 
by  the  Prison  Department  at  Albany. 

With  this  paper  in  my  possession  I,  person- 
ally, appealed  to  the  newspapers  to  set  me 
right  with  my  clients  and  the  public  by  pub- 
lishing it,  or  by  making  a  retraction.  But  not 
one  of  them,  the  city  dailies  or  the  dramatic 
weeklies,  although  they  did  not  question  its 
authenticity,  would  do  so.  They  were  all  will- 
ing to  publish  the  lies  but  unwilling  to  publish 
the  truth. 

You  can  say  what  you  like,  it  was  pretty 
tough;  they  were  pounding  me  hard.  The 
esteem  of  thousands  one  day;  the  condemna- 
tion of  thousands  the  next  day.  To  experience 
and  to  stand  up  under  this  required  fortitude. 
But  I  am  not  asking  commiseration.  I  want 
only  justice. 

Now  if  the  reader  thinks  that  Mr.  Bogart, 
by  abusing  the  great  power  this  city  has  con- 
ferred upon  him,  aided  another,  or  others,  in 
bringing  about  this  deplorable  state  of  af- 


fairs;  if  he  thinks  that  Mr.  Bogart  acted  un- 
justly in  permitting  Lawyer  Goodhart,  with- 
out a  semblance  of  evidence,  and  without 
having  made  the  slightest  investigation,  to 
stand  up  in  public  and  accuse  me  of  having 
served  a  sentence  of  two  years  in  Auburn 
State's  Prison  for  the  crime  of  decoying 
young  girls  to  houses  of  ill-repute,  thereby 
deceiving  numberless  fathers  and  mothers  and 
causing  them  to  visit  their  wrath  upon  me. 
when  he,  Bogart,  had  had  so  much  time 
(TWENTY-FIVE  DAYS) ,  and  could  so  easily  have 
ascertained  the  truth  by  communicating  with 
the  Warden  of  the  prison;  and  if  the  reader 
thinks  any  or  all  of  these  acts  tend  to  show 
conspiracy  on  the  part  of  Mr.  Bogart,  in  con- 
junction with  another,  or  others,  then  he,  "if 
the  acts  speak  for  themselves,  is  at  liberty  to 
infer  the  intent."  So  much  for  John  N. 
Bogart. 

Now  all  during  this  time,  the  time  between 
the  secret  Sunday  night  meeting  of  March 
25th,  1906,  in  Cullison's  office,  up  to  the  very- 
day  before  the  hearing  was  to  be  called,  I  was 
in  total  ignorance  of  what  was  going  on.  I 
did  not  have  an  inkling  of  the  trouble  brew- 
ing, the  plot,  the  whispered  conversations 
along  the  "Rialto,"  the  underhanded  inter- 

233 


views  at  the  License  Commissioner's  office  with 
Miss  Arthur,  Mrs.  Smith,  Keating,  Cullison, 
Goodhart  and  others.  All  this  time  I  was  at- 
tending to  my  own  business  without  a  suspicion 
that  others  were  planning  and  scheming  to 
wreck  it.  The  first  intimation  I  had  of  any- 
thing wrong  came  in  the  shape  of  a  letter  from 
the  License  Commissioner  of  which  the  fol- 
lowing is  a  copy: 

"New  York,  April  26th,  1906. 
Mr.  Jared  Flagg: 

Dear  Sir. — The  Commissioner  of  Licenses 
directs  me  to  inform  you  that  an  objection  has 
been  lodged  in  this  office  against  the  issuance 
of  a  license  to  you. 

Mr.  Lawrence  G.  Goodhart,  as  attorney  for 
the  Woman's  Rescue  League,  has  entered  the 
objection  and  has  asked  for  a  hearing.  The 
Commissioner  will  hear  his  objection,  and  that 
of  any  other  person  who  may  appear,  on  Satur- 
day next,  April  28th,  1906,  at  10.30  o'clock 
a.  m.,  in  his  office,  and  asks  that  you  be  pres- 
ent or  represented. 

Yours  truly, 

JOHN  J.  Cadwell,  Secretary." 

Even  after  reading  this  letter  I  did  not 
regard  the  matter  as  serious.    I  knew  that  I 


234 


had  done  nothing  out  of  the  way  and  that  no 
client  of  mine  could  have  just  cause  to  com- 
plain. I  felt  that  it  was  some  mistake,  and  that 
the  matter,  whatever  it  might  be,  would  adjust 
itself. 

This  is  what  I  saw  in  the  office  of  the  Com- 
missioner of  Licenses  for  the  City  of  New 
York,  277  Broadway,  Borough  of  Manhattan, 
to  wit: — A  large  room  and  a  long  table,  at  one 
end  of  which  was  a  seat  reserved  for  the  Com- 
missioner. A  stenographer  occupied  a  chair 
to  the  left.  A  police  officer  showed  me  to  a 
chair  at  the  left  of  the  stenographer.  To  the 
right  of  the  Commissioner's  chair  was  F.  L.  C. 
Keating,  formerly  License  Commissioner,  but 
now  attorney  for  theTheatrical  Agents' Society. 
In  the  chair  next  to  his,  and  directly  opposite 
to  mine,  was  Lawrence  G.  Goodhart,  attorney 
for  the  alleged  "Woman's  Rescue  League." 
Then  came  Helen  Arthur,  attorney  for  the 
Woman's  Municipal  League.  Next  to  her 
were  several  of  her  female  cronies — not  wit- 
nesses, she  could  produce  none.  And  at  the  far 
end  of  the  table  a  dozen  or  more  newspaper  re- 
porters were  seated. 

In  due  course  of  time  the  "Honorable"  John 
N.  Bogart,  Commissioner  of  Licenses,  who 
was  to  act  as  the  Judge,  emerged  from  an  ante- 


235 


chamber,  followed  by  Charlotte  Smith,  the 
self-styled  president  of  the  alleged  "National 
and  International  Woman's  Rescue  League," 
for  which  Lawyer  Goodhart  claimed  to  be 
counsel. 

The  License  Commissioner  was  solemn. 
They  were  all  solemn  and  well  they  might  be. 
They  were  about  to  deprive  a  fellow  being  of 
his  inalienable  rights — the  right  to  make  an 
honest  living  in  his  chosen  vocation.  But  this 
was  not  all,  they  were  about  to  steal  from  him 
his  name.  Whatever  it  was  worth  to  him  in 
his  business  and  in  his  relations  with  mankind, 
they  were  about  to  take  it  from  him ;  not  unin- 
tentionally, but  intentionally;  knowing  what 
they  were  doing,  knowing  and  not  caring; 
knowing  that  they  were  thieves,  differing  in  no 
respect  from  the  commonest  sneak-thief — un- 
less it  be  that  they  lacked  his  courage.  Gen- 
erally when  a  thief  is  caught  "red-handed," 
with  the  goods  on  him,  he  owns  up  and  takes 
his  "medicine  like  a  major."  But  these  long- 
faced,  sanctimonious  Pharisees,  when  caught 
in  the  act,  tried  to  lie  out  of  it,  by  pretending 
they  did  not  know  what  they  were  doing. 

At  that  time  I,  knowing  nothing  about  the 
plot  which  had  been  hatched  to  ruin  me,  and 
not  for  one  moment  supposing  that  the  License 

236 


Commissioner  of  this  great  city  was  a  man  de- 
void of  honor,  attended  the  hearing  without 
being  represented  by  counsel.  Lawyer  Good- 
hart  noticing  this,  asked  with  an  air  of  self- 
righteousness  if  he  might  address  a  few  words 
to  the  defendant.  "It  is  only  fair  that  the  de- 
fendant should  be  cautioned.  Mr.  Flagg  is 
not  a  lawyer  and  we  do  not  wish  to  take  undue 
advantage  of  him.  He  should  be  told  that  any- 
thing he  may  say  at  this  hearing  may  hereafter 
be  used  against  him." 

Think  of  a  lawyer  getting  off  a  speech  like 
that,  and  in  the  next  breath  reading  aloud  the 
lies  contained  in  the  letter  of  April  3d,  1906. 
He  knew,  and  everyone  of  them  knew,  that 
they  would  be  unable  to  substantiate  the 
charge  that  I  had  served  a  term  in  Auburn 
Prison  or  in  any  other  State's  prison  for  the 
crime  of  decoying  young  girls  to  houses  of  ill- 
repute  or  for  any  other  crime;  but  they  were 
cunning  enough  to  know  that  such  an  accusa- 
tion, in  itself,  would  work  an  incalculable  in- 
jury to  me.  It  was  part  of  their  plot  to  end  my 
career  as  a  theatrical  agent;  the  first  move  as 
it  were,  and  the  moment  it  had  been  made, 
every  newspaper  man  at  the  far  end  of  the  table 
recorded  it.  Then  all  eyes  were  turned  on  me. 


237 


Considering  I  had  never  even  seen  Auburn 
State's  Prison  I  expressed  a  desire  to  see  its 
records.  "Certainly,"  replied  the  Commis- 
sioner; and  then  to  preserve  his  dignity  in  the 
eyes  of  the  newspaper  reporters  he  turned  to 
Lawyer  Goodhart,  and  in  a  take-it-for-granted 
kind  of  way  said,  "Counselor,  show  Mr.  Flagg 
your  certified  copy  of  the  prison  records."  He 
said  it  just  as  if  he  supposed  Goodhart  really 
had  such  a  copy,  when  he  knew  all  the  time,  as 
well  as  Goodhart  knew,  that  no  such  certified 
copy  of  the  Auburn  State's  Prison  records,  im- 
plicating me,  existed. 

Goodhart  made  some  silly  excuse,  attribut- 
ing his  inability  to  procure  the  records  to  his 
floating  kidney  which  was  causing  him  trouble. 
This  bit  of  side  play  between  the  two  was  ob- 
viously for  the  purpose  of  deceiving  the  re- 
porters, and  incidentally  conveying  the  idea 
to  the  public  that  such  a  document  in  reality 
existed. 

"Give  me  three  days  and  I  will  produce  a 
copy,"  said  Mr.  Goodhart.  "Well,  see  that 
you  do,"  remarked  the  Commissioner,  "or  I 
shall  renew  Mr.  Flagg's  license;"  and  an 
adjournment  of  three  days  was  then  ordered 
ostensibly  for  this  purpose. 

238 


A  direct  charge,  if  false,  can  usually  be  dis- 
proved, but  an  indirect  charge  or  an  insinua- 
tion, however  groundless,  is  not  always  so  easy 
to  overthrow. 

The  Smith  woman,  and  the  female  lawyer, 
Helen  Arthur,  it  seems  must  have  been  aware 
if  this  fact;  for  immediately  after  the  sham 
"hearing"  had  been  temporarily  adjourned 
they  unblushingly  "buttonholed"  the  reporters, 
and  proceeded  to  look  wise  and  throw  out  hints 
— "It  is  intimated,"  they  whispered,  "that  his 
agency  is  being  used  for  immoral  purposes. 
No!  we  have  no  evidence  as  yet,  but  we  expect 
to  have.  Both  Mrs.  Smith  and  myself,"  said 
Helen  Arthur,  "are  heartily  in  accord,  and  to- 
gether we  propose  to  ferret  out  and  follow  up 
every  clew." 

The  question  was  asked  by  the  reporters,  if 
any  complaints  had  been  made  against  me. 
"We  do  not  like  to  say.  No,  we  can  give  no 
addresses  or  mention  any  names  at  present.  It 
would  hardly  be  prudent  to  do  so.  Later  we 
may  make  a  statement  to  the  press.  If  you 
mention  my  name,  please  note  that  I  am  at  the 
head  of  the  'Rescue  Department  of  the  Wo- 
man's Municipal  League,'  "  said  Miss  Arthur. 
"And  if  my  name  is  to  be  mentioned  in  the 


239 


newspapers,"  said  Mrs.  Smith,  the  alleged 
High  Priestess  of  the  fake,  so-called  "Woman's 
Rescue  League,"  "please  note  that  I  am  the 
President  of  the  'National  and  International 
Woman's  Rescue  League'  of  New  York,  Lon- 
don and  Paris.  No!  we  have  no  New  York 
office,  No!  we  have  no  London  office,  No!  we 
have  no  Paris  office;  but  we  expect  to  have," 
remarked  Mrs.  Smith,  as  she  smilingly  shook 
hands  with  the  Commissioner  and  reporters 
before  bidding  them  adieu. 

When  two  such  women,  posing  as  reformers, 
and  thirsting  for  notoriety,  free  newspaper  ad- 
vertising, get  their  clutches  on  a  dozen  or  more 
"space  writers,"  there  is  no  computing  the 
damage  they  may  do. 

Now  for  a  moment  place  yourself  in  my 
position,  and  try  to  imagine  what  your  sensa- 
tions would  have  been  the  morning  after 
these  female  mischief  makers  had  got  in  their 
"fine  work"  on  the  reporters  at  this  burlesque 
"hearing"  before  the  License  Commissioner. 
If  with  honor  and  integrity  you  had  built  up  a 
business  from  nothing  to  something;  if  for 
six  long  years,  winter  and  summer,  you  had 
worked  early  and  late;  if  you  had  dealt  and 
talked  personally  with  thousands  of  people. 


240 


ambitious,  intelligent  and  worthy  young 
women  and  young  men,  all  eager  to  "make 
good"  and  advance  in  their  profession;  if  you 
had  by  square  dealing  gained  their  esteem;  if 
they  not  only  returned  year  after  year  to  do 
business  with  you,  but  referred  their  friends 
to  you;  if  you  were  acquainted  with  many  of 
their  parents  and  if  these  fathers  and  these 
mothers  also  reposed  confidence  in  you,  if  they 
respected  you,  if  they  depended  on  your  hon- 
esty and  your  judgment  to  advise  them  with 
which  managers,  in  which  companies,  it  would 
be  safe  to  entrust  their  sons  and  their  daugh- 
ters ;  and  if  you  also  had  in  the  profession  many 
acquaintances,  playwrights  of  renown,  actors 
and  actresses  whose  names  are  known  over  the 
length  and  breadth  of  the  land;  and  if  you 
were  acquainted  with  many  of  the  leading 
stage  directors,  honorable  men,  who  seemed 
and  who  were  anxious  to  aid  you,  anxious  to 
see  you  prosper  in  your  business,  men  who  did 
not  hesitate  to  endorse  you,  to  recommend  you, 
and  who  would  go  out  of  their  way  to  favor 
you;  if  you  had  such  business  acquaintances, 
and  if  you  felt  grateful,  if  you  had  failed  in 
previous  undertakings,  but  could  now  see  suc- 
cess ahead;  and  if  it  made  life  seem  worth 


241 


living;  if  it  seemed  to  you  (as  it  did  to  me) 
that  you  were  accomplishing  something  in  the 
world,  procuring  honest  employment  for 
thousands  of  honest  persons ;  and  if  this  knowl- 
edge were  a  satisfaction,  if  it  were  a  greater 
satisfaction  to  you  even  than  the  cash  profits  of 
your  business ;  if  you  valued  more  highly  than 
money,  the  high  regard  in  which  you  were 
held  by  those  with  whom  you  had  business 
dealings ;  in  short,  if  you  were  at  peace  with 
the  world;  if  you  had  enemies,  but  were  will- 
ing to  overlook  and  forget  past  differences, 
willing  to  blame  yourself  instead  of  them;  if 
you  had  thought  it  all  over  and  were  willing 
to  let  bygones  be  bygones,  willing  to  forgive 
everyone  but  yourself,  feeling  that  there  was, 
that  there  is,  in  each  man's  life,  sorrow  and  suf- 
fering enough  to  disarm  you  of  all  hostility;  if 
this  were  how  you  felt ;  and  if  you  had  friends, 
not  the  fair-weather  kind,  the  kind  that  are 
afflicted  with  affected  accents  or  with  social 
aspirations,  and  who  quake  in  the  knees  at  the 
thought  of  appearing  as  witnesses  in  courts  of 
law  or  of  getting  their  names  in  the  news- 
papers, not  the  moral  cowards  who  value  above 
all  other  earthly  possessions  the  superficial 
courtesies  extended  to  them  by  the  members 


242 


of  their  social  set — I  do  not  mean  that  kind — 
but  real  friends,  the  kind  that  don't  scare  and 
that  will  stand  by,  shoulder  to  shoulder  with 
you,  "true  as  steel,"  when  clouds  are  gathering 
and  when  the  future  looks  dark;  if  you  had 
such  friends;  and  if  you  had  relatives  who  felt 
that  you  had  disgraced  the  family  name, 
though  not  intentionally,  and  were  therefore 
staunch  and  true,  uncles,  aunts,  cousins,  nieces, 
and  nephews ;  and  if  you  had  brothers,  any  one 
of  whom  would  share  his  last  dollar  with  you, 
brothers  who  would  not  permit  any  man  or 
any  woman,  not  even  an  old  friend  of  the 
family,  to  malign  you  in  their  presence;  if  you 
had  such  brothers,  whom  you  loved  and  sisters 
whom  you  loved,  and  a  mother  whom  you 
loved;  how  would  you  feel  to  have  her,  and 
them,  and  all  the  others,  some  fine  morning, 
open  the  newspapers,  not  one  paper,  but  all  the 
papers,  and  read  that  powerful  societies — the 
Theatrical  Agents'  Society  and  also  Benev- 
olent Woman's  Leagues  of  high  repute  had  in- 
timated, INTIMATED,  that  your  place  of  busi- 
ness— your  office — was  not  what  it  appeared  to 
be — a  legitimate  agency — but  a  "feeder"  for 
disorderly  houses;  how  do  you  think  you 
would  feel?  How  do  you  think  I  felt? 


243 


CHAPTER  VIII. 


Successful  men  frequently  become  so  re- 
spectable that  they  develop  into  hypocrites. 
If  they  do  anything  out  of  the  conventional  it 
is  done  on  the  sly.  They  must  be  careful. 
People  might  talk. 

Bogart,  the  License  Commissioner,  was 
afraid  people  might  talk,  especially  the  news- 
paper reporters;  and  this  explains  why  he  laid 
so  much  stress  on  the  three  days'  adjournment. 

"I  shall  grant  this  adjournment,"  he  said, 
"for  the  purpose  of  giving  us  time  to  com- 
municate with  the  warden,  and  if  copies  of 
the  prison  records  implicating  Mr.  Flagg  are 
not  here  in  three  days  I  shall  issue  a  license  to 
him."  These  are  his  words  copied  from  the 
minutes,  and  they  sounded  all  right  to  the  re- 
porters, but  all  wrong  to  me.   Why  should  a 


244 


person  who  had  had  TWENTY-FIVE  days  in 
which  to  investigate  a  simple  matter  want 
three  days  more?  It  was  ridiculous.  It  was 
a  subterfuge,  a  trick  on  his  part  to  create  the 
impression  in  the  minds  of  the  reporters  that  I 
had  in  reality  served  such  a  term,  and  in 
three  days  proof  thereof  would  be  forthcom- 
ing. This  was  the  impression  that  the  news- 
papers conveyed  to  the  public.  But  the  proof 
did  not  come;  and  yet  Mr.  Bogart,  despite  his 
promise  to  give  me  my  license,  in  the  absence 
of  such  proof,  did  not  do  so. 

What  would  you,  the  reader,  say  if  you,  in 
place  of  me,  had  been  accused  of  a  crime  and 
brought  before  a  judge  and  had  told  him  you 
were  falsely  accused?  What  would  you  say 
if  he  had  said  to  you,  "All  right,  if  I  find  that 
you  have  been  falsely  accused  I  will  see  to  it 
that  you  are  not  punished,  and  in  order  to  give 
myself  time  to  investigate,  and  discover  if  you 
have  been  falsely  accused,  I  shall  lay  your 
case  over  for  three  days?" 

That  might  seem  straight,  but  at  the  expira- 
tion of  three  days — the  expiration — suppose 
then  you  had  asked  his  "Honor"  if  he  had 
made  the  investigation,  what  would  you  think 
if  he  told  you  he  had  not;  but  that  in  the 


245 


exercise  of  his  discretion  he  had  decided  to 
punish  you  anyway,  with  or  without  evidence, 
what  kind  of  a  judge  would  you  think  you 
were  up  against?  Would  you  regard  him  as 
an  ornament  to  the  Bench? 

In  substance  this  is  what  the  "Honorable" 
John  N.  Bogart  said  to  me;  and  those  who 
heard  him  say  it,  and  at  the  expiration  of  the 
three  days  also  heard  him  lie  out  of  it,  and 
elect  to  punish  me  anyway,  with  or  without 
evidence,  expressed  the  opinion  that  he  was  a 
disgrace  to  the  city  that  supported  him. 

Mr.  Bogart  sent  for  NO  proof  before  order- 
ing the  charge  to  be  made  against  me.  He 
sent  for  NO  proof  after  ordering  the  charge 
to  be  made  against  me.  I  hold  a  letter  signed 
by  the  warden  of  Auburn  State's  Prison 
to  the  effect  that  NO  person,  barring  myself, 
before  or  after  the  charge  was  made  in  public 
against  me  had,  directly  or  indirectly,  insti- 
tuted any  inquiries  regarding  the  matter. 

Was  Mr.  Bogart  afraid  to  know  the  truth? 
Were  they  all  afraid  to  know  the  truth?  Had 
Mr.  Bogart  or  any  one  of  the  others  written 
he  would  have  received  word  from  the  war- 
den that  there  was  NO  truth  in  the  charge 
which  had  been  made  against  me.    But  did 

246 


Mr.  Bogart,  or  the  others,  have  any  earthly  use 
for  such  information?  They  were  only  inter- 
ested in  injuring  me,  and  the  injury  was  in- 
flicted the  moment  the  charge  was  made 
against  me  in  public.  If  the  injury  was  not 
inflicted  why  am  I  out  of  the  threatrical  busi- 
ness? And  why  have  I  been  out  of  it  from 
that  moment? 

The  License  Bureau  is  not  conducted  as  it 
should  be.  Dishonest  rulings  are  the  rule,  and 
my  case  was  not  one  of  the  exceptions  to  the 
rule. 

The  New  York  Evening  Journal,  under 
date  of  November  5th,  1908,  when  comment- 
ing on  a  preliminary  report  made  to  Mayor 
McClellan  by  the  Commissioners  of  Accounts, 
stated  that  "the  License  Bureau  of  this  city  is 
rotten  to  the  core."  It  took  them  a  long  time 
to  find  it  out.  I  could  have  given  them  this 
information  three  years  ago. 

No  man  should  be  placed  in  a  position  so 
far  above  his  fellow  men  that  he  is  privileged 
to  summon  a  reputable  citizen  to  appear  be- 
fore him,  at  a  public  hearing,  for  the  purpose 
of  ruining  that  reputable  citizen's  business  and 
reputation.  But  Mr.  Bogart  has  this  preroga- 
tive.   He  occupies  a  position  so  exalted  that 


247 


he  is  privileged  to  ignore  all  proof,  all  evi- 
dence, however  vital,  and  under  the  license 
law  he  can,  in  the  exercise  of  his  discretion, 
ruin  a  man's  business  and  reputation  without 
rendering  himself  amenable  to  the  law.  This 
is  what  he  says  and  I  guess  he  is  right. 

Before  recording  the  events  of  my  second 
session  with  his  Honor  the  Commissioner,  the 
reader  should  be  informed  of  all  that  took 
place  during  the  three  days'  interval  between 
the  first  and  second  hearings.  They  were  not 
considerate  enough  to  inform  me,  in  advance, 
but  I  shall  inform  the  reader. 

Having  made  this  Auburn  Prison  charge 
against  me  without  an  atom  of  evidence,  they 
decided  that  it  might  be  as  well  before  making 
a  second  charge  to  manufacture  a  little  evi- 
dence. 

In  the  License  Bureau  they  have  a  young 
lawyer  named  Henry  N.  Steinert.  Mr.  Stein- 
ert  says  Mr.  Bogart  told  him  to  go  over  to  the 
General  Sessions  Court  and  have  a  talk  with 
William  Hanna.  Mr.  Hanna  is  first  assistant 
to  Chief  Clerk  Edward  R.  Carroll  of  the  said 
court.  Bogart  won't  tell  what  he  told  Stein- 
ert to  say  to  Hanna.  Steinert  won't  tell  what 
he  told  Hanna  to  say  to  Carroll,  and  Hanna 

248 


won't  tell  what  he  told  Carroll  to  do,  but  as  I 
shall  tell  you  what  Carroll  did  do,  you  can 
draw  your  own  conclusions  as  to  what  was 
said. 

The  Chief  Clerk  of  the  Court  of  General 
Sessions  of  the  City  of  New  York  has  charge 
of  the  official  records  of  said  court.  The  rec- 
ords of  my  "flat  trial"  were  in  the  custody  of 
this  chief  clerk,  Edward  R.  Carroll.  He  held 
the  combination  of  the  vault  in  which  they 
were  kept.  Bogart  knew  this  and  Bogart  said 
something  to  Steinert.  Do  not  forget  this  fact. 
Steinert  said  something  to  Hanna.  Keep  this 
in  mind  also.  And  after  Hanna  had  said 
something  to  Carroll,  Carroll  entered  the 
vault,  and  "dug  up"  the  records  of  my  "flat 
trial." 

To  prove  an  innocent  person  guilty  in  New 
York  City;  that  is,  to  legally  prove  a  person 
guilty  of  any  certain  count  in  an  indictment, 
who  has  been  tried  in  a  court  of  record,  and 
adjudged  not  guilty  of  the  said  certain  count, 
it  is  necessary  to  go  through  more  or  less  "red 
tape." 

As  previously  stated,  years  ago  I  had  been 
adjudged  not  guilty  by  a  duly  impanelled 
jury  of  my  peers,  of  the  charge  of  renting  flats 

249 


to  be  used  for  immoral  purposes  and  of  keep- 
ing disorderly  houses.  The  records  of  the 
court  in  which  I  was  tried  show  that  I  was 
acquitted  of  the  aforementioned  chargest 
Therefore  to  legally  prove  that  I  was  not  ac- 
quitted of  the  aforementioned  charges  it  was 
essential  not  exactly  to  alter  the  minutes  of 
my  trial,  on  file  in  said  court,  but  simply  to 
have  the  chief  clerk  thereof  draft  a  copy  of 
the  said  minutes  with  such  little  variations  as 
might  be  necessary  to  make  it  easy  for  his 
"Honor"  the  License  Commissioner  to  per- 
suade himself  that  the  verdict  of  my  jury  was 
not  what  it  purported  to  be. 
This  was  done. 

In  the  original  court  records  the  word  "mis- 
demeanor" appears.  In  the  certified  copy, 
made  at  Bogart's  request,  the  word  "felony" 
takes  its  place. 

In  the  original  the  word  "indicted"  appears. 
In  the  certified  copy,  made  at  Bogart's  request, 
the  word  "convicted"  takes  its  place. 

In  the  original  the  word  "dismissed"  ap- 
pears. In  the  certified  copy,  made  at  Bogart's 
request,  the  word  "sentenced"  takes  its  place. 

When  a  sworn  certified  copy  of  the  minutes 


250 


of  a  trial  carries  with  it  the  signature  of  the 
chief  clerk  of  the  court  in  which  the  case  was 
tried,  and  also  the  official  seal  of  the  court,  it 
is  usually  regarded  as  "knock-down"  evidence. 

This  doctored  certificate  which  was  to  be 
used  as  evidence  against  me,  carried  the  seal 
of  the  General  Sessions  Court.  William  Hanna 
stamped  it  thereon.  It  also  carried  the  signa- 
ture of  the  chief  clerk,  Edward  R.  Carroll. 
After  Mr.  Carroll  had  affixed  his  signature  he 
gave  it  to  Lawyer  Steinert  of  the  License 
Bureau,  who  carried  it  from  the  Criminal 
Courts  Building  to  the  license  office  and  gave 
it  to  Commissioner  Bogart.  Can  you  arrive  at 
a  conclusion  now  as  to  what  Bogart  said  to 
Steinert  and  what  Steinert  said  to  Hanna,  and 
what  Hanna  said  to  Carroll? 

A  man  may  have  knowledge  and  experience 
and  still  be  a  fool.  I  was  fool  enough  (at  the 
expiration  of  the  three  days'  adjournment)  to 
go  again  down  to  the  license  office  without 
taking  a  lawyer  with  me.  What  was  the  use 
of  retaining  a  lawyer  to  prove  that  I  had  not 
served  a  term  in  Auburn  State's  Prison  when 
all  the  lawyers  in  the  land  could  not  prove  I 
had  ever  seen  the  outside  or  the  inside  of  its 


251 


walls?  Knowing  nothing  of  what  had  taken 
place  during  the  three  days'  interval,  this  was 
how  I  reasoned,  so  in  I  walked  and  there  they 
were,  the  same  old  crowd:  Charlotte  Smith 
with  her  white  kid  gloves ;  Lawyer  Goodhart 
with  his  two  pairs  of  spectacles  on  his  nose,  he 
was  there;  Bogart,  the  "Honorable,"  he  was 
there;  ex-License  Commissioner  F.  L.  C. 
Keating,  he  was  there  also,  notwithstanding 
that  the  Theatrical  Agents'  Society,  which  he 
was  supposed  to  represent,  had  notified  the 
press,  the  License  Commissioner  and  myself, 
that  it  had  no  complaints  to  make  against  me. 

The  following  is  a  copy  of  the  letter  I  re- 
ceived from  the  Agents'  Society,  and  in  sub- 
stance Bogart  and  the  press  received  similar 
letters : 

"Jared  Flagg,  Esq. : 

"Dear  Sir. — Our  association  has  made  no 
charges  against  you,  nor  are  any  pending. 

"(signed)  JAMES  J.  ARMSTRONG, 
"President  Theatrical  Association, 
"1431  and  1433  Broadway,  N.  Y.  City." 

Helen  Arthur  also  sent  a  letter  of  which  the 
following  is  a  copy: — 


252 


"License  Commissioner  of  the  City  of  New 
York: 

"Dear  Sir. — As  we  have  no  complaints  to 
make  against  Jared  Flagg  we  hereby  petition 
you  to  issue  a  theatrical  agent's  license  to 
him.    .    .  . 

"Helen  Arthur, 
"Woman's  Municipal  League, 
"19  East  Twenty-sixth  Street,  N.  Y.  City." 

Miss  Arthur  was  not  present  at  this  second 
hearing,  but  the  reporters,  they  were  all  there, 
and  when  I  glanced  down  at  their  end  of  the 
table  they  nodded  politely.  This  was  a  bad 
omen,  and  I  commenced  to  feel  uncomfort- 
able. Could  it  be  possible  that  they  were  go- 
ing to  spring  something  new  on  me?  Some 
other  bogus  charge?  This  thought  flashed 
through  my  mind;  and  I  opened  the  meeting 
without  being  asked  to  do  so,  by  requesting  the 
Commissioner  to  produce  the  Auburn  Prison 
record,  the  one  said  to  implicate  me,  and 
which  Lawyer  Goodhart  had  agreed  at  the 
previous  hearing  to  present  at  this  hearing; 
but,  barring  myself,  no  one  would  allude  to 
Auburn  State's  Prison. 

The  Commissioner,  whom  I  was  addressing, 


253 


ignored  me  entirely,  but  called  Lawyer  Good- 
hart  aside,  and  in  a  confidential  manner  and 
low  tone  of  voice  (too  low  for  the  reporters  to 
hear  but  not  so  low  that  I  was  unable  to  hear) 
said  to  him,  "You  take  this  document  and  pre- 
sent it  before  me  at  the  hearing." 

Goodhart  took  it,  and  it  was  the  bogus  certi- 
fied copy  of  the  record  of  my  "flat  trial,"  which 
had  been  made  at  Bogart's  request,  and  which 
Carroll  had  signed.  First  Goodhart,  standing 
by  a  window,  away  from  all  of  us,  read  it  to 
himself.  He  then  came  over  to  the  table,  and, 
while  standing,  read  the  imposing  legal  docu- 
ment impressively  to  the  Commissioner  just 
as  if  it  was  something  the  Commissioner  had 
never  seen  or  heard  of. 

Goodhart  then  walked  over  to  where  the  re- 
porters were  seated;  showed  the  document  to 
them;  and  they  scrutinized  it  intently  and 
copied  certain  portions  of  it.  It  was  then 
taken  to  the  other  end  of  the  long  table  and 
given  to  the  License  Commissioner.  I  occu- 
pied the  second  chair  to  the  left  of  the  Com- 
missioner and  he  passed  the  document  over  to 
me  for  inspection.  If  ever  I  inspected  a  paper 
it  was  that  one.  Out  of  common  politeness, 
under  ordinary  circumstances,  I  would  not 

254 


have  kept  a  room  full  of  people  waiting;  but 
here  was  a  case  in  which  I  proposed  to  take 
my  time,  and  with  care  and  deliberation  I 
read  every  word. 

Little  did  I  dream,  at  that  time,  of  the  dia- 
bolical plot  which  was  being  perpetrated 
against  me.  The  document  had  every  appear- 
ance of  being  authentic.  After  having  read  it 
twice  over,  once  more  I  looked  at  the  words 
"felony,"  "convicted,"  "sentenced."  Could  I 
believe  my  own  eyes?  Was  I  worse  than  I 
thought  I  was?  Was  I  guilty,  when  for  years 
I  had  prided  myself  on  being  innocent?  And 
again  I  looked,  I  looked  at  the  gilt  seal  which 
was  as  large  as  a  small  sized  buckwheat  cake. 
I  had  nothing  to  say.  We  seldom  regret  hav- 
ing said  too  little.  We  frequently  feel  like 
kicking  ourselves  for  having  said  too  much.  I 
could  have  said  a  few  things,  but  decided  to 
make  no  comment,  simply  to  ask  for  an  ad- 
journment. Goodhart,  at  the  first  hearing, 
had  asked  for  an  adjournment  of  three  days 
which  was  granted  without  question.  Now  I 
asked  for  a  like  adjournment,  but  instantly 
there  was  a  storm  of  protest.  "If  not  three, 
make  it  one.  Give  me  a  day  to  investigate  this 
matter,"  I  said  to  the  License  Commissioner. 


255 


"It  means  much  to  me;  it  means  everything. 
If  true,  you  can  act  on  it  to-morrow;"  and  I 
explained  that  one  day  could  make  no  serious 
difference.  He  made  no  reply.  Lawyers 
Goodhart  and  Keating  seeing  that  he  hesitated 
took  him  aside  and  whispered  to  him.  It  was 
the  order  of  the  day  to  take  the  Judge  aside  and 
whisper  to  him.  They  "do  things  differently" 
in  the  License  Commissioner's  office  from  the 
way  they  do  them  in  a  court  of  law.  As 
Bogart  himself  said  at  my  third  hearing,  "You 
might  have  that  right  in  a  court  of  law,  but 
we  do  things  differently  here."  The  whispered 
conversation  evidently  produced  the  desired 
effect,  for  when  his  "Honor"  returned  to  his 
seat  his  mind  was  made  up  and  he  was  ob- 
durate. He  would  not  listen  to  an  adjourn- 
ment of  even  one  day.  "Give  me  two  or  three 
hours,  then,"  I  said.  "Let  me  rush  over  to  the 
Court  of  General  Sessions  and  I  will  be  back 
with  some  word  or  someone  who  will  explain 
that  this  certificate  is  not  a  true  copy  of  the 
records."  But  no,  he  would  not  delay  a  mo- 
ment; and  with  the  fraudulent  alleged  certi- 
fied copy  of  the  court  records  (held  high 
above  his  head),  in  which  the  word  "felony" 
had  been  substituted  for  the  word  "misde- 


256 


meanor;"  and  the  word  "convicted"  substi- 
tuted for  the  word  "indicted;"  and  the  word 
"sentenced"  substituted  for  the  word  "dis- 
missed;" he,  the  so-called  "Honorable"  John 
N.  Bogart,  who  had  given  himself  and  the 
others  an  adjournment  of  three  days,  and  had 
peremptorily  refused  to  grant  me  an  adjourn- 
ment of  three  hours,  ruled  as  follows  (copied 
from  the  official  minutes)  : 

By  the  License  Commissioner: — 
"I  am  going  to  save  a  lot  of  time.  I  accept 
this  document  as  being  a  true  statement  that 
Jared  Flagg  was  convicted  of  keeping  a  dis- 
orderly house  and  fined  and  imprisoned.  I 
am  going  to  rule  that  anyone  convicted  of 
keeping  a  disorderly  house  is  not  entitled  to 
an  agency  license."  Then  turning  to  me  he 
said,  "Your  application  for  a  renewal  of  your 
license  is  DENIED." 

This  settled  it,  and  the  Commissioner  and 
the  others,  including  the  reporters,  hurried 
from  the  room.  All  left  with  the  exception  of 
the  policeman  and  myself.  I  didn't  move. 
For  the  moment  I  was  staggered.  I  wanted 
to  think  a  little.  Was  it  true?  Could  it  be 
true?  But  true  or  false  my  life  had  been 
blasted.  This  much  at  that  time  I  knew.  Now 


257 


in  the  eyes  of  the  public  I  was  a  real  felon.  In 
the  eyes  of  the  public  I  was  no  longer  a  citizen 
of  the  United  States ;  no  longer  had  the  right 
to  vote;  no  longer  had  the  right  to  walk  the 
streets  of  the  city;  could  no  longer  hold  my 
head  erect  and  look  decent  people  in  the  face ; 
mortified,  chagrined,  humiliated,  my  name 
vilified,  my  reputation  gone,  my  business 
ruined.  Legally  branded  an  outcast.  Ostra- 
cised, banished,  and  subjected  to  the  ridicule, 
scorn  and  hatred  of  my  fellow  citizens;  the 
convicted  keeper  of  a  bawdy  house,  a  disgrace 
to  my  family,  to  the  community,  and  to  my- 
self. This  would  be  the  verdict  of  the  people. 
Under  the  circumstances  it  would  be  impos- 
sible for  them  to  reach  any  other  decision,  and 
despite  anything  I  could  say  or  do,  thousands 
would  condemn  me;  thousands  would  believe 
the  forged  document  to  be  true;  thousands 
would  read  the  newspapers,  and  every  daily 
newspaper  in  the  city — English,  German, 
French,  Italian,  Spanish  and  Hebrew  would, 
and  DID,  PROCLAIM  IT  AS  TRUE,  BROADCAST  TO 
THE  WORLD. 


258 


CHAPTER  IX. 


AFTER  the  horse  had  been  stolen,  the  barn 
door  was  kept  locked.  After  my  license  had 
been  stolen  I  retained  a  lawyer,  H.  D.  Milde- 
berger,  Esq.,  and  it  did  not  take  him  long  to 
discover  that  a  forgery  had  been  committed. 

Suits  were  brought  against  Edward  R. 
Carroll,  Chief  Clerk  of  the  Court  of  General 
Sessions,  and  also  against  his  assistant,  Wil- 
liam Hanna.  These  suits,  four  in  all,  twenty- 
five  thousand  dollars  each,  are  still  pending. 
Two  for  damages  and  two  for  libel.  The 
libel  suits  are  of  such  a  character  as  to  be  libel- 
ous per  se;  that  is,  judgment  may  be  recovered 
without  being  called  upon  to  show  actual 
money  loss. 

The  License  Commissioner  after  illegally 
depriving  me  of  my  license,  which  is  the  same 
thing  as  stealing  it  from  me,  probably  thought 

259 


that  that  would  be  the  last  he  would  hear  ot 
the  matter.  But  when  it  was  made  clear  to 
me  that  the  document  on  which  he  had  denied 
my  application  for  a  renewal  license  was  a 
forgery,  I  called  and  asked  him  to  annul  his 
decision.  This  he  refused  to  do,  whereupon 
my  lawyer  appealed  to  the  Corporation  Coun- 
sel of  the  City  of  New  York.  It  is  this  offi- 
cial's duty,  among  other  things,  to  defend  the 
License  Commissioner  in  matters  relating  to 
the  conduct  of  his  office.  My  particular  mat- 
ter was  placed  in  charge  of  Assistant  Corpora- 
tion Counsel  Charles  O'Neil,  and  Mr. 
O'Neil,  after  investigating,  advised  Commis- 
sioner Bogart  to  retract.  But  as  time  rolled 
by,  and  as  no  retraction  seemed  to  be  forth- 
coming, I  instructed  my  attorney  to  carry  the 
case  to  the  Appellate  Division  of  the  Supreme 
Court.  This  move  on  our  part  made  Mr.  Bo- 
gart sit  up  and  take  notice.  If  he  allowed  my 
case  to  reach  this  court,  his  entire  doings  under 
the  law  would  have  to  be  reviewed  by  the  Ap- 
pellate Division  judges,  and  what  would 
they  have  to  say  about  the  forged  certificate, 
the  perjured  testimony  and  the  illegal  and 
biased  rulings  of  the  License  Commissioner? 
If  anyone  knew,  Bogart  knew,  that  in  the 

260 


Appellate  Division  of  the  Supreme  Court 
they  "did  things  differently;"  that  is,  differ- 
ently from  the  manner  in  which  he  "did 
things."  It  was  he,  as  previously  stated,  who 
had  told  us  so.  His  exact  words,  copied  from 
the  minutes,  read:  "You  might  have  that 
right  in  a  court  of  law,  but  we  do  things  dif- 
ferently here."  By  "we"  he  meant  him- 
self, and  by  'here"  he  meant  the  License 
Bureau.  And  now  my  case  was  going  to  a  dif- 
ferent tribunal.  It  was  on  the  calendar  of  the 
Appellate  Division  of  the  Supreme  Court,  and 
Bogart,  judging  from  his  frantic  efforts,  was 
more  than  anxious  to  have  it  taken  off  this  cal- 
endar and  brought  back  to  him,  where  it  could 
and  would,  according  to  his  own  words,  be 
dealt  with  differently.  Unquestionably  he 
knew  that  if  the  case  should  be  reviewed  by 
this  high  court  it  would  go  hard  with  him, 
whereas  he  wanted  it  to  go  hard  with  me.  And 
in  order  that  it  might  go  hard  with  me  and  that 
I  might  again  be  placed  at  his  mercy;  and  in 
order  that  it  might  not  go  hard  with  him  and 
that  his  crooked  acts  might  not  be  passed  upon 
by  the  judges  of  the  Appellate  Division  of  the 
Supreme  Court,  he  finally  accepted  the  advice 
of  the  Assistant  Corporation  Counsel,  Charles 

261 


O'Neil,  and  owned  up  to  the  truth  and  sent  me 
a  letter  of  which  the  following  is  a  copy : — 

"New  York,  July  7,  1906. 
Mr.  Jared  Flagg: 

Dear  Sir. — I  hereby  notify  you  that  the  de- 
termination reached  by  me  on  May  2,  1906, 
whereby  your  application  for  a  license  to  keep 
a  theatrical  agency  was  denied,  has  been  an- 
nulled by  me,  on  the  ground  that  it  appears 
that  the  record  of  the  Court  of  General  Ses- 
sions offered  in  evidence,  relative  to  your  trial 
in  that  court,  was  erroneously  certified  by  the 
clerk  thereof. 

You  are  hereby  notified  that  a  hearing  upon 
your  application  will  be  held  on  the  23d  day 
of  July,  1906,  at  2.30  p.  m.,  at  this  office. 
Respectfully  yours, 
(Signed)  JOHN  N.  BOGART, 
Commissioner  of  Licenses. 

At  first  he  had  refused,  but  he  was  "annul- 
ling" all  right  now. 

With  the  aid  of  Webster's  Dictionary,  I 
discovered  that  "erroneously"  meant  falsely; 
and  in  making  his  confession,  he  should  have 
used  this  word,  but  I  suppose  he  liked  the 
sound  of  the  other  one  better. 


262 


An  erroneous  document  is  a  false  document; 
and  this  one,  solitary,  false  document,  al- 
though in  no  manner,  even  remotely,  related 
to  my  theatrical  business,  was  the  only  evi- 
dence used  against  me.  THIS  IS  THE  POINT  I 
WANT  TO  MAKE  CLEAR.  No  other  evidence  was 
submitted.  No  witness,  no  client,  no  person 
in  any  way  connected  with  my  agency  office, 
or  the  theatrical  profession,  appeared  before 
the  License  Commissioner  to  testify  against 
me.  And  it  was  solely  on  this  ONE  false  docu- 
ment, which  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  the- 
atrical business,  which  referred  only  to  my 
"Flat"  trial  of  years  ago,  1896,  that  my  ap- 
plication, made  ten  years  later,  1906,  for  a  the- 
atrical agent's  license,  was  denied.  Therefore, 
the  fact  that  Commissioner  Bogart  now,  in 
writing  and  over  his  own  signature,  admits 
that  the  document  was  "erroneously  certified," 
is  equivalent  to  admitting  that  I  lost  my  busi- 
ness, its  good  will,  my  good  name,  the  esteem 
of  my  customers,  the  confidence  of  their  par- 
ents, the  respect  of  the  community  at  large,  and 
all  else,  on  a  FALSE  DOCUMENT. 

Barring  Bogart,  Goodhart,  Keating,  Mc- 
Conville,  Weeks,  Donohue,  Price  and  a  few 
others,  it  is  problematical  as  to  whether  any 

263 


person  would  say  that  it  was  right  to  take  the 
bread  and  butter  out  of  my  mouth  on  such  a 
document — perjury,  forgery  and  certified  lies; 
but  it  was  done  to  me  just  the  same.  There 
are  those  in  this  world  who  might,  if  sub- 
jected to  such  an  injustice,  lose  heart  and 
want  to  lie  down  and  die.  But  not  I.  Die? 
Never!  I  have  too  much  to  do,  am  too  busy 
trying  to  regain  the  esteem  of  my  fellow  be- 
ings to  shuffle  off  this  mortal  coil  without  first 
compelling  those  who  have  so  unjustly  ma- 
ligned me  to  acknowledge  the  error  of  their 
ways. 

More  than  once,  and  by  more  than  one,  I 
have  been  treated  like  a  dog;  not  that  I  mer- 
ited it,  but  because,  since  the  days  of  the 
"Flagg  Flats"  an  impression  has  prevailed 
that  that  is  the  proper  way  to  treat  me.  Some 
persons  are  awfully  proper.  It  does  not  take 
much  to  shock  them,  and  this  may  explain 
why  most  of  the  little  ups  and  downs  of  my 
life  date  from  those  days.  Up  to  that  time 
the  going  was  tolerably  smooth,  and  had  I 
then,  when  first  approached  by  the  police, 
paid  tribute  to  them,  in  the  shape  of  "blood 
money,"  I  should  not  now  be  talking  about 
"  fake  hearings"  and  "erroneously  certified" 

264 


legal  documents.  This  is  another  point  I 
want  to  make  CLEAR  AND  EMPHATIC.  Had  I, 
years  ago,  knuckled  under  to  the  police,  not 
one  word  reflecting  on  the  ethics  of  my  ten- 
ants, or  on  my  own  morality,  would  ever  have 
been  heard.  There  would  have  been  no 
scurrilous  newspaper  articles  alluding  to  them 
or  myself,  published.  I  should  have  occupied 
a  position  above  reproach.  I  should  have 
been  rich.  Even  if  I  had  given  the  police 
every  dollar  of  the  net  profits  accruing  from 
my  furnished  flats,  the  advance  in  the  real 
property  located  in  the  heart  of  New  York 
City  and  held  by  me  fifteen  years  ago  has  been 
so  great  that  it  would  in  itself  have  made  me 
financially  independent  of  the  world.  At  a 
low  estimate  this  advance  in  value  would  have 
exceeded  half  a  million  of  dollars. 

If  money  covers  a  multitude  of  sins,  consid- 
ering that  I  am  not  half  as  bad  as  I  have  been 
painted,  do  you  not  suppose  that  with  such  a 
fortune  I  could  have  covered  all  my  sins? 
Why,  there  is  no  question  about  it.  I  should 
have  been  regarded  as  a  paragon  of  virtue. 
Nothing  would  have  been  too  good  for  me.  I 
should  have  been  courted  and  esteemed; 
whereas  now  I  do  not  see  as  I  am  being 

265 


courted,  and  I  doubt  if  I  would  be  considered 
eligible  even  to  the  "Four  Hundred." 

This  is  what  a  man  sometimes  gets  for 
standing  out  on  a  principle;  but  I  did  it,  and 
a  volley  of  unprintable  oaths  and  the  clinched 
fist  of  a  police  captain,  in  full  dress  parade 
uniform,  shaken  in  front  of  my  nose,  could  not 
make  me  swerve  from  my  principle.  No 
"third  degree,"  no  threat,  even  when  I  saw 
dire  ruin  staring  me  in  the  face,  could  move 
me.  But  men  have  been  moved  by  threats  less 
aggravating.  New  York  is  full  of  blackmail- 
ers of  all  kinds;  and  many  persons,  posing  as 
respectable,  have  yielded  to  their  demands  and 
paid  "hush-money,"  and  sacrificed  self-respect 
that  they  might  retain  the  respect  of  others. 
No  person  can,  however,  truthfully  say  that  I 
ever  debauched  my  honor  for  the  sake  of  social 
or  financial  gain.  And  it  was  because  Mr. 
Bogart  knew  I  was  no  hypocrite  and  had 
nothing  to  cover  up  that  he  did  not  wish  the 
judges  of  the  Appellate  Division  of  the  Su- 
preme Court  to  hear  my  story.  To  prevent  me 
from  telling  it,  he  not  only,  as  previously 
stated,  owned  up  to  the  truth,  but  in  the  con- 
cluding paragraph  of  his  confessing  letter, 
ordered  me  to  appear  before  him  for  a  re- 


266 


hearing.  This  was  not  to  my  liking.  I  had 
had  all  the  hearings  I  wanted,  and  to  restrain 
him  from  holding  any  more  in  my  case,  served 
him  with  a  temporary  injunction.  It  was  at 
this  particular  juncture  that  his  "Royal  High- 
ness" did  some  tall  prevaricating.  He  had 
ordered  me  to  come  back  for  a  re-hearing,  but 
instead  of  coming  I  had  "clapped"  a  tempo- 
rary injunction  on  him  which  acted  as  a  re- 
strainer;  put  an  end  to  any  further  hearings  in 
my  case  until  such  time  as  he  could  have  the 
injunction  vacated.  The  uncertainty  as  to 
whether  it  ever  could  be  vacated  riled  him,  and 
although  I  do  not  wish  it  understood  that  he  so 
far  forgot  himself  as  to  raise  his  right  hand 
and  swear  before  Almighty  God  to  a  lie,  I  do 
want  it  known  that  he  affixed  his  signature  to 
several  lies.  John  N.  Bogart  is  not  a  man  to 
commit  perjury;  that  would  be  against  his 
principles;  he  knows  the  penalty;  but,  place 
him  in  a  compromising  position  and  he  will 
not  scruple  to  affix  his  signature  to  a  lie  as  is 
shown  in  his  Return  (which  means  his  de- 
fense) to  the  Writ  of  Certiorari  which  I  had 
brought  against  him  and  which  was  at  the  time 
pending  before  the  Appellate  Division  of  the 
Supreme  Court.    In  this  Return,  which  was 

267 


to  be  read  by  the  Judges  of  the  Appellate  Divi- 
sion he  said  that  the  Theatrical  Agents'  Soci- 
ety, as  a  Society,  and  the  Woman's  Municipal 
League,  as  a  League,  and  also  the  Woman's 
Rescue  League,  as  a  League,  had  appeared  be- 
fore him  as  complainants  against  me.  His 
exact  words  copied  from  the  court  records 
were  as  follows : 

"Lawrence  G.  Goodhart,  21  Park  Row, 
appears  for  the  Woman's  Rescue  League. 

"The  Theatrical  Agents'  Society  appears  by 
Frederick  L.  C.  Keating,  of  38  Park  Row. 

"The  Woman's  Municipal  League  appears 
by  Miss  Helen  Arthur,  of  277  Broadway." 

On  June  13th,  1906,  he  tells  the  Judges  of 
the  Appellate  Division  of  the  Supreme  Court 
that  the  Theatrical  Agents'  Society  appeared 
before  him  on  April  28,  1906.  (The  word 
"appeared,"  when  used  in  this  legal  sense, 
means  put  in  an  appearance;  it  means  the 
Theatrical  Agents'  Society,  as  a  body,  and  as 
complainants,  put  in  an  appearance  against 
me.)  Mr.  Bogart  knew  that  was  not  true.  On 
April  28th,  1906,  a  month  and  a  half  before  he 
affixed  his  signature  to  this  false  statement, 
when  the  question,  at  my  first  hearing,  was 
asked  Lawyer  Keating  (and  Bogart  himself 

268 


was  the  one  who  asked  the  question) ,  "Do  you 
appear  here  for  the  Theatrical  Agents'  So- 
ciety?" Mr.  Keating's  answer  (and  I  am 
quoting  from  the  minutes)  was  as  follows: — 
"No,  your  Honor,  the  Theatrical  Agents'  So- 
ciety does  not  appear  against  Mr.  Flagg.  I 
am  simply  here  as  a  spectator  and  to  see  that 
Mr.  Flagg,  who  is  a  theatrical  agent,  receives 
a  square  deal." 

To  this  answer,  as  is  shown  by  the  minutes, 
Commissioner  Bogart  remarked:  —  "Mr. 
Flagg  seems  competent  to  look  after  his  own 
affairs." 

The  very  next  day,  April  29th,  1906,  in 
response  to  a  letter  from  me  to  it,  the  Theatri- 
cal Agents'  Society  notified  Commissioner 
Bogart,  in  writing,  that  it  had  not  appeared 
against  me.  Furthermore,  I,  personally, 
showed  Mr.  Bogart  a  letter  I  held,  and  still 
hold,  signed  by  the  President  of  the  said  So- 
ciety, J.  J.  Armstrong,  to  the  effect  that  it  had 
lodged  no  complaint  against  me  and  had  no 
complaint  to  make.  But,  despite  all  this  proof, 
a  month  and  a  half  later,  June  13th,  1906,  and 
over  his  own  signature,  Mr.  Bogart  informed 
the  Judges  of  the  Appellate  Division  of  the 
Supreme  Court  that  the  Theatrical  Agents' 

269 


Society  HAD  appeared  before  him,  on  April 
28th,  1906,  and  was  there  and  then  represented 
by  Lawyer  Frederick  L.  C.  Keating.  He 
wouldn't  swear  to  it;  Bogart  wouldn't  commit 
perjury;  that  would  be  against  his  principles; 
he  knows  the  penalty;  but  he  would  and  did 
affix  his  signature  to  this  LIE. 

When  in  the  same  so-called  Return  to  the 
same  Writ  he  informed  the  same  Appellate 
Division  judges  that  the  Woman's  Municipal 
League  had  appeared  before  him  and  was  rep- 
resented by  Miss  Helen  Arthur,  he  knew  that 
this  was  not  so.  He  had  asked  Miss  Arthur, 
as  a  special  favor  to  him,  to  be  present  at  my 
hearing,  "with  or  without  a  complaint,"  and 
simply  to  accommodate  him  she  was  present 
without  a  complaint.  When  Mr.  Bogart 
asked  her  if  the  Woman's  Municipal  League 
had  any  charges  to  make  against  me  she  re- 
plied (and  I  am  quoting  from  the  minutes), 
"We  have  no  complaint."  Later  she  not  only 
put  this  in  writing  (that  she  had  no  com- 
plaint), but  requested  the  Commissioner  to 
grant  me  a  license.  I,  furthermore,  showed 
Mr.  Bogart  a  letter,  which  I  held  and  still 
hold,  signed  by  the  Woman's  Municipal 
League,  to  this  same  effect.   And  yet  despite 


270 


all  this  proof  he  notified  the  Judges  of  the 
Appellate  Division  of  the  Supreme  Court,  a 
month  and  a  half  thereafter,  June  13th,  1906, 
that  the  Woman's  Municipal  League  HAD  ap- 
peared before  him  at  my  first  hearing,  April 
28th,  1906,  and  was  there  and  then  represented 
by  Miss  Helen  Arthur.  He  wouldn't  swear  to 
it;  Bogart  wouldn't  commit  perjury;  that 
would  be  against  his  principles;  he  knows  the 
penalty;  but  he  would  and  did  affix  his  signa- 
ture to  this  LIE. 

When  also  he  made  the  statement  in  the 
same  Return  to  the  same  Writ  and  to  the  same 
judges,  that  the  Woman's  Rescue  League  had 
appeared  and  was  represented  by  Lawrence  G. 
Goodhart,  he  knew  it  was  false,  and  I  will  ex- 
plain why  he  knew  it.  When  my  lawyer  was 
cross-questioning  Charlotte  Smith  regarding 
her  fake  "League,"  and  she  was  becoming 
hopelessly  entangled  and  her  lawyer  was  ob- 
jecting and  the  License  Commissioner  was  sus- 
taining his  objections,  he,  Bogart,  made  the 
following  remark  to  my  lawyer  (copied  from 
the  minutes),  "Mr.  Mildeberger,  you  might 
have  that  right  in  a  court  of  law,  but  we  do 
things  differently  here,  and  I  shall  not  allow 
any  questions  regarding  this  League"  (mean- 


271 


ing  the  fake  "Woman's  Rescue  League") ,  "be 
cause  according  to  the  statement  of  the  attor- 
ney who  represents  this  witness"  (meaning 
Charlotte  Smith)  "no  such  League  appears 
here  or  is  represented  before  me."  This,  as 
per  the  official  minutes,  is  what  he  said  to  my 
lawyer.  "No  such  League  appears  here  or  is 
represented  before  me."  But,  as  per  the  offi- 
cial Court  Records,  he  tells  the  judges  of  the 
Appellate  Division  that  such  a  League  HAD 
appeared  before  him,  at  my  first  hearing. 
April  28th,  1906,  and  was  then  and  there  rep- 
resented by  Lawyer  Lawrence  G.  Goodhart. 
He  wouldn't  swear  to  it ;  Bogart  wouldn't  com- 
mit perjury;  that  would  be  against  his  prin- 
ciples; he  knows  the  penalty;  but  he  would 
and  did  affix  his  signature  to  this  LIE. 

He  prepared,  signed  and  filed  with  the  Ap- 
pellate Division  these  and  other  false  state- 
ments so  that  in  case  he  had  to  appear  before 
this  court  he  seemingly  would  have  some 
ground  of  defense  to  my  writ.  But  in  the 
meantime  he  was  putting  forth  every  effort  to 
have  the  injunction  vacated  which  I  had  se- 
cured against  him  and  which  restrained  him 
from  holding  further  hearings  in  my  case. 
And  after  many  delays  and  a  bitter  legal  fight, 

272 


Justice  V.  J.  Dowling  ordered  the  injunction 
vacated;  so  after  all  I  was  obliged  to  return 
and  appear  again  before  his  "Honor,"  the 
License  Commissioner. 

Every  time  I  think  of  this  return-hearing  I 
experience  a  touch  of  sea-sickness.  Not  that 
I  actually  disgorge,  but  the  symptoms  are  all 
there.  Talk,  talk,  talk,  quibbling  all  the  time, 
first  one  lawyer  and  then  another,  over  matters 
wholly  irrelevant,  and  making  no  progress. 

To  appeal  a  case  the  testimony  for  and 
against  the  defendant  must,  at  the  defendant's 
expense,  be  printed  and  bound  in  pamphlet 
form  before  it  can  be  submitted  to  a  higher 
court.  In  this  case  I  was  the  defendant,  and  in 
the  event  of  an  appeal  each  word  spoken  would 
cost  me  just  so  much  money  to  have  it  printed. 
Therefore,  to  check  this  needless  flow  of  ex- 
pensive words  at  my  subsequent  hearings,  I 
determined  to  eliminate  Lawyers  Keating  and 
Goodhart;  and  with  this  end  in  view  I  notified 
them  that  if  they  took  any  further  part,  ever 
again,  at  any  of  my  hearings  before  the  Com- 
missioner, I  would  bring  them  up  before  the 
Lawyers'  Grievance  Committee  and  give  them 
an  opportunity  to  show  cause  why  they  should 
not  be  disbarred  as  co-conspirators  in  the  plot 


273 


to  deprive  me  of  my  license.  This  notification, 
which  was  duly  drawn  up  in  writing  after  I 
had  had  a  talk  with  Assistant  District  Attor- 
ney Marshall,  must  have  almost  frightened  the 
life  out  of  these  two  "legal  lights,"  for  they 
dropped  Bogart  like  a  "hot  potato,"  and  from 
that  day  till  this  I  have  not  laid  eyes  on  either 
one  of  them. 

Tell  a  crooked  lawyer  engaged  in  a  crooked 
case  to  quit  or  you  will  move  to  have  him 
disbarred,  and  he  will  quit  every  time  and  quit 
in  a  hurry.    But  with  the  "Honorable"  John 

N.  B  it  was  different.    He  couldn't  quit. 

The  conspirators  (certain  theatrical  agents 
and  others  previously  named)  had  influence 
with  certain  political  bosses,  and  Bogart  may 
have  received  orders  from  someone  higher  up, 
possibly  a  "Tammany  ward  heeler";  and  his 
salary,  one  hundred  dollars  a  week,  for  all  I 
know,  may  have  been  at  stake;  so  he  had  to 
keep  the  hearings  going,  and  at  the  progress  he 
was  making  it  would  have  taken  him  a  year  or 
more  to  complete  the  job.  He  seemed  pur- 
posely to  retard  us.  It  was  not,  he  said,  so 
much  a  question  of  virtue  at  the  present  time. 
He  admitted  that  I  might  now  be  a  moral  man 
and  might  have  lived  a  moral  life  during  all 
the  years  in  which  I  had  been  engaged  in  the 


274 


theatrical  business;  but  the  question  he  wished 
to  determine,  even  if  it  took  a  year,  was,  had  I 
always  lived  such  a  life?  In  his  opinion  any 
man  who,  at  any  period,  had  been  guilty  of 
"sowing  wild  oats"  was  not  a  fit  person  to  be  a 
theatrical  agent.  You  have  no  idea,  unless  you 
have  been  one  yourself,  what  an  exemplary  lot 
they,  the  theatrical  agents  of  this  city,  are. 
And  so  the  tiresome,  silly,  make-believe  hear- 
ings, month  after  month,  dragged  on;  and  the 
money  I  had  saved  was  melting  as  money  only 
can  melt  when  everything  is  going  out  and 
nothing  coming  in.  It  was  when  things  were 
in  this  precarious  condition  that  I  ran  up 
against  a  snag,  the  worst  I  had  struck,  a  letter 
written  by  my  brother  Ernest  and  which  reads 
as  follows: 

"If  I  were  you  I  would  waste  no  more  time  or 
money  in  trying  to  procure  a  license.  It  is  not 
worth  it,  and  I  wish  you  would  cut  loose  from 
this  whole  unsavory  mess  and  turn  your  attention 
to  something  that  has  a  future  and  is  worthy  of 
you  and  your  bringing  up.  I  am  sure  if  you  look 
around  you  will  find  a  profitable  opening  in  some 
direction.  You  may  think  your  past  record  a 
handicap,  but  I  doubt  if  it  will  prove  as  much  of 
a  one  as  you  imagine.  If  you  will  take  my 
advice,  I  will  stand  behind  you  and  will  show 
my  confidence  by  not  limiting  you  in  time  or 
amount.  When  you  want  money  ask  for  it  and 
I  will  send  it  to  you." 


275 


Before  I  had  half  finished  reading  this 
letter  my  arms  dropped.  Here  was  where  I 
couldn't  fight.  I  knew  he  did  not  realize 
what  he  was  asking  me  to  do,  but  that  did 
not  help  matters.  He  was  my  brother,  and 
it  is  different  when  it's  your  brother. 

Engrossed  in  vast  enterprises  involving 
millions  of  dollars  and  the  employment  of 
thousands  of  men,  he  had  had  no  time  to  look 
into  my  affairs  which,  in  comparison  with  his 
own,  were  picayune.  He  only  knew  that  I  had 
been  dealing  with  theatrical  people,  and  had 
not  made  a  fortune.  And  on  general  princi- 
ples, without  being  familiar  with  the  thou- 
sand and  one  circumstances  surrounding  the 
case,  he  had,  out  of  the  kindness  of  his  heart, 
written  the  aforementioned  letter  to  me.  Had 
it  come  from  another  I  would  have  thanked 
that  other  for  his  advice  and  offer,  but  would 
have  declined  both  and  continued  the  struggle. 
I  would  have  gone  down  to  my  grave  fighting 
rather  than  have  let  up  on  the  scoundrels  who 
had  swindled  me  out  of  my  license. 

Lawyer  Mildeberger,  all  my  lawyers,  Will- 
iam Marshall,  Assistant  District-Attorney, 
and  everyone  familiar  with  the  attendant  con- 
ditions said  it  had  been  withheld  from  me  ille- 

276 


gaily;  and  I  was  terribly  anxious  that  this 
fact  should  be  known.  If  I  could  have  said, 
if  I  could  have  advertised,  in  the  theatrical 
and  daily  papers  that  the  license  had  been 
granted,  that  it  was  once  more  hanging  in  its 
frame  over  my  desk,  in  the  same  old  place,  it 
would  have  been  a  vindication,  and  this  was 
all  I  wanted — my  name. 

The  eyes  of  the  theatrical  world  were  upon 
me.  It  should  be  remembered  that  I  was 
known,  known  clear  across  the  continent, 
wherever  spectacular  and  light  opera  com- 
panies are  booked.  Thousands  were  waiting 
and  watching  and  wondering  whether  I  would 
win  or  lose.  The  withholding  or  the  granting 
of  that  little  piece  of  printed  paper,  to  me, 
meant  everything.  It  could  give  to  or  it  could 
take  from  me  what  money  could  not  buy.  In 
the  estimation  of  all  these  people — thousands 
of  people — it  meant  one  thing  or  the  other, 
an  upright  man  or  a  degenerate.  What  then 
would  the  inference  be  if  I  allowed  the  matter 
to  go  by  default? 

Not  only  the  theatrical  papers  published  in 
New  York,  but  in  other  large  cities,  had  an- 
nounced to  their  readers  that  the  fight  was 
on.   What  reason  could  I  give  if  I  now 


277 


"threw  up  the  sponge,"  and  what  reason 
would  they,  the  editors  of  these  papers,  as- 
sign? Aside  from  the  operatic  managers  and 
theatrical  agents  and  general  public  I  had  a 
clientele  of  over  seven  thousand  young 
women,  and  the  man  does  not  live  who  can 
afford  to  ignore  the  opinion  of  seven  thou- 
sand of  his  fellow  beings.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  man  does  not  live  who  can  afford  to  tell 
his  brother  to  "go  to  the  devil!"  If  I  had 
ignored  my  brother's  letter,  what  would  have 
been  the  result?  It  is  true  I  could  have  ex- 
plained matters;  and  had  I  done  so  he  would, 
without  waiting  to  hear  details,  have  said, 
"If  that  is  how  you  feel,  why,  of  course,  fight 
the  thing  to  a  finish."  I  am  well  enough 
acquainted  with  him  to  know  that  that  is  just 
what  he  would  have  said;  but — there  would 
have  been  a  but.  He  advised,  I  refused;  he 
listened,  I  explained;  and  it  was  all  right — 
but  (here  is  where  the  but  comes  in)  it  would 
be  all  wrong.  There  would  have  been  that 
feeling,  the  feeling  that  time,  years  of  time, 
alone  can  obliterate.  I  didn't  want  any  of  it; 
and  with  the  full  knowledge  that  I  should 
be  misrepresented  by  the  Press  (and  I  was), 
and  misjudged  by  the  people  (and  I  was),  I 


278 


decided  to  abandon  the  contest  and  relinquish 
all  hope  of  ever  again  becoming  a  theatrical 
agent. 

"Blood  is  thicker  than  water,"  and  between 
the  multitude  and  the  one,  I  decided. 

There  is  some  hope  for  a  man  who  can 
decide  wrongly.  A  day  may  come  when  he 
will  decide  rightly.  But  a  man  who  can 
never  decide,  who  always  wants  to  think  it 
over  and  winds  up  by  asking  some  other  per- 
son to  decide  for  him,  for  him  there  is  no 
hope. 

Without  a  quibble,  an  explanation,  or  an 
interview,  just  as  if  it  were  a  matter  of  small 
moment  to  me,  just  as  if  it  were  easy  to  dis- 
regard the  verdict  of  those  who  had  formerly 
respected  me,  I  requested  my  lawyer  to  notify 
Commissioner  Bogart  that  I  would  withdraw 
my  application  for  a  license.  In  reply  to  this 
notification  we  received  a  letter  of  which  the 
following  is  a  copy: 

"New  York,  February  6,  1907. 
"H.  D.  MlLDEBERGER,  Esq., 
"Attorney-at-Law, 
"Dear  Sir. — Your  communication,  as  Attor- 
ney for  Jared  Flagg,  notifying  me  that  he 

279 


wished  to  withdraw  his  application  for  a 
license  has  been  received,  accepted  and  filed. 

"Yours  truly, 
(Signed)  "John  N.  BOGART, 

"Commissioner  of  Licenses." 

The  day  this  letter  acknowledging  the  ac- 
ceptance of  the  withdrawal  of  my  applica- 
tion for  a  license  was  received  it  was  for- 
warded to  my  brother  Ernest,  and  the  follow- 
ing day  he  wrote  me  "I  am  sure  you  have 
made  a  wise  decision." 

So  there  you  are.  That's  the  whole  story. 
And  mark  you  this  story,  word  for  word,  was 
published  over  a  year  ago.  Not  only  pub- 
lished but  read  by  those  herein  denounced. 
Marked  copies  of  the  first  edition,  as  stated  in 
the  preface  of  this  edition,  were  sent  to  them 
ALL  with  my  compliments.  Were  it  not  there- 
fore, from  the  beginning  to  the  end,  a  TRUE 
story,  do  you  suppose  I  would  now  be  going 
about  loose  accepting  the  congratulations  of 
my  friends? — Hardly — I  would  be  in  jail  and 
the  charge  against  me  would  be 

CRIMINAL  LIBEL 


280 


